text:
Jun 2: Rousseau's A SAVOYARD VICAR Vol. 34, pp. 239-249
PROFESSION OF FAITH OF A
SAVOYARD VICAR
EXPECT from me neither learned declamations nor profound arguments. I am no great philosopher, and give myself but little trouble in regard to becoming such. Still I perceive sometimes the glimmering of good sense, and have always a regard for the truth. I will not enter into any disputation, or endeavor to refute you; but only lay down my own sentiments in simplicity of heart. Consult your own during this recital: this is all I require of you. If I am mistaken, it is undesignedly, which is sufficient to absolve me of all criminal error; and if I am right, reason, which is common to us both, shall decide. We are equally interested in listening to it, and why should not our views agree?
I was born a poor peasant, destined by my situation to the business of husbandry. It was thought, however, much more advisable for me to learn to get my bread by the profession of a priest, and means were found to give me a proper education. In this, most certainly, neither my parents nor I consulted what was really good, true, or useful for me to know; but only that I should learn what was necessary to my ordination. I learned, therefore, what was required of me to learn,—I said what was required of me to say—and, accordingly, was made a priest. It was not long, however, before I perceived too plainly that, in laying myself under an obligation to be no longer a man, I had engaged for more than I could possibly perform.
Some will tell us that conscience is founded merely on our prejudices, but I know from my own experience that its dictates constantly follow the order of nature, in contradiction to all human laws and institutions. We are in vain forbidden to do this thing or the other—we shall feel but little remorse for doing any thing to which a well-regulated natural instinct excites us, how strongly soever prohibited by reason. Nature, my dear youth, hath hitherto in this respect been silent in you. May you continue long in that happy state wherein her voice is the voice of innocence! Remember that you offend her more by anticipating her instructions than by refusing to hear them. In order to know when to listen to her without a crime, you should begin by learning to check her insinuations.
I had always a due respect for marriage as the first and most sacred institution of nature. Having given up my right to enter into such an engagement, I resolved, therefore, not to profane it: for, notwithstanding my manner of education, as I had always led a simple and uniform life, I had preserved all that clearness of understanding in which my first ideas were cultivated. The maxims of the world had not obscured my primitive notions, and my poverty kept me at a sufficient distance from those temptations that teach us the sophistry of vice.
The virtuous resolution I had formed, was, however, the very cause of my ruin, as my determination not to violate the rights of others, left my faults exposed to detection. To expiate the offence, I was suspended and banished; falling a sacrifice to my scruples rather than to my incontinence. From the reproaches made me on my disgrace, I found that the way to escape punishment for an offence is often by committing a greater.
A few instances of this kind go far with persons capable of reflection. Finding by sorrowful experience that the ideas I had formed of justice, honesty, and other moral obligations were contradicted in practice, I began to give up most of the opinions I had received, until at length the few which I retained being no longer sufficient to support themselves, I called in question the evidence on which they were established. Thus, knowing hardly what to think, I found myself at last reduced to your own situation of mind, with this difference only, that my unbelief being the later fruit of a maturer age, it was a work of greater difficulty to remove it.
I was in that state of doubt and uncertainty in which Descartes requires the mind to be involved, in order to enable it to investigate truth. This disposition of mind, however, is too disquieting to long continue, its duration being owing only to indolence or vice. My heart was not so corrupt as to seek fresh indulgence; and nothing preserves so well the habit of reflection as to be more content with ourselves than with our fortune.
I reflected, therefore, on the unhappy lot of mortals floating always on the ocean of human opinions, without compass or rudder—left to the mercy of their tempestuous passions, with no other guide than an inexperienced pilot, ignorant of his course, as well as from whence he came, and whither he is going. I often said to myself: I love the truth—I seek, yet cannot find it. Let any one show it to me and I will readily embrace it. Why doth it hide its charms from a heart formed to adore them?
I have frequently experienced at times much greater evils; and yet no part of my life was ever so constantly disagreeable to me as that interval of scruples and anxiety. Running perpetually from one doubt and uncertainty to another, all that I could deduce from my long and painful meditations was incertitude, obscurity, and contradiction; as well with regard to my existence as to my duty.
I cannot comprehend how any man can be sincerely a skeptic on principle. Such philosophers either do not exist, or they are certainly the most miserable of men. To be in doubt, about things which it is important for us to know, is a situation too perplexing for the human mind; it cannot long support such incertitude; but will, in spite of itself, determine one way or the other, rather deceiving itself than being content to believe nothing of the matter.
What added further to my perplexity was, that as the authority of the church in which I was educated was decisive, and tolerated not the slightest doubt, in rejecting one point, I thereby rejected in a manner all the others. The impossibility of admitting so many absurd decisions, threw doubt over those more reasonable. In being told I must believe all, I was prevented from believing anything, and I knew not what course to pursue.
In this situation I consulted the philosophers. I turned over their books, and examined their several opinions. I found them vain, dogmatical and dictatorial—even in their pretended skepticism. Ignorant of nothing, yet proving nothing; but ridiculing one another instead; and in this last particular only, in which they were all agreed, they seemed to be in the right. Affecting to triumph whenever they attacked their opponents, they lacked everything to make them capable of a vigorous defence. If you examine their reasons, you will find them calculated only to refute: If you number voices, every one is reduced to his own suffrage. They agree in nothing but in disputing, and to attend to these was certainly not the way to remove my uncertainty.
I conceived that the weakness of the human understanding was the first cause of the prodigious variety I found in their sentiments, and that pride was the second. We have no standard with which to measure this immense machine; we cannot calculate its various relations; we neither know the first cause nor the final effects; we are ignorant even of ourselves; we neither know our own nature nor principle of action; nay, we hardly know whether man be a simple or compound being. Impenetrable mysteries surround us on every side; they extend beyond the region of sense; we imagine ourselves possessed of understanding to penetrate them, and we have only imagination. Every one strikes out a way of his own across this imaginary world; but no one knows whether it will lead him to the point he aims at. We are yet desirous to penetrate, to know, everything. The only thing we know not is to contentedly remain ignorant of what it is impossible for us to know. We had much rather determine at random, and believe the thing which is not, than to confess that none of us is capable of seeing the thing that is. Being ourselves but a small part of that great whole, whose limits surpass our most extensive views, and concerning which its creator leaves us to make our idle conjectures, we are vain enough to decide what that whole is in itself, and what we are in relation to it.
But were the philosophers in a situation to discover the truth, which of them would be interested in so doing? Each knows very well that his system is no better founded that the systems of others; he defends it, nevertheless, because it is his own. There is not one of them, who, really knowing truth from falsehood, would not prefer the latter, if of his own invention, to the former, discovered by any one else. Where is the philosopher who would not readily deceive mankind, to increase his own reputation? Where is he who secretly proposes any other object than that of distinguishing himself from the rest of mankind? Provided he raises himself above the vulgar, and carries away the prize of fame from his competitors, what doth he require more? The most essential point is to think differently from the rest of the world. Among believers he is an atheist, and among atheists he affects to be a believer.
The first fruit I gathered from these meditations was to learn to confine my enquiries to those things in which I was immediately interested;—to remain contended in a profound ignorance of the rest; and not to trouble myself so far as even to doubt about what it did not concern me to know.
I could further see that instead of clearing up any unnecessary doubts, the philosophers only contributed to multiply those which most tormented me, and that they resolved absolutely none. I therefore applied to another guide, and said to myself, let me consult my innate instructor, who will deceive me less than I may be deceived by others; or at least the errors I fall into will be my own, and I shall grow less depraved in the pursuit of my own illusions, than in giving myself up to the deceptions of others.
Taking a retrospect, then, of the several opinions which had successively prevailed with me from my infancy, I found that, although none of them were so evident as to produce immediate conviction, they had nevertheless different degrees of probability, and that my innate sense of truth and falsehood leaned more or less to each. On this first observation, proceeding to compare impartially and without prejudice these different opinions with each other, I found that the first and most common was also the most simple and most rational; and that it wanted nothing more to secure universal suffrage, than the circumstance of having been last proposed. Let us suppose that all our philosophers, ancient and modern, had exhausted all their whimsical systems of power, chance, fate, necessity, atoms, an animated world, sensitive matter, materialism, and of every other kind; and after them let us imagine the celebrated Dr. Clarke enlightening the world by displaying the being of beings—the supreme and sovereign disposer of all things. With what universal admiration,—with what unanimous applause would not the world receive this new system,—so great, so consolatory, so sublime,—so proper to elevate the soul, to lay the foundations of virtue,—and at the same time so striking, so enlightened, so simple,—and, as it appears to me, pregnant with less incomprehensibilities and absurdities than all other systems whatever! I reflected that unanswerable objections might be made to all, because the human understanding is incapable of resolving them, no proof therefore could be brought exclusively of any: but what difference is there in proofs! Ought not that system then, which explains everything, to be preferred, when attended with no greater difficulties than the rest?
The love of truth then comprises all my philosophy; and my method of research being the simple and easy rule of common sense, which dispenses with the vain subtilty of argumentation, I reexamined by this principle all the knowledge of which I was possessed, resolved to admit as evident everything to which I could not in the sincerity of my heart refuse to assent, to admit also as true all that seemed to have a necessary connection with it, and to leave everything else as uncertain, without either rejecting or admitting, being determined not to trouble myself about clearing up any point which did not tend to utility in practice.
But, after all, who am I? What right have I to judge of these things? And what is it that determines my conclusions? If, subject to the impressions I receive, these are formed in direct consequence of those impressions, I trouble myself to no purpose in these investigations. It is necessary, therefore, to examine myself, to know what instruments are made use of in such researches, and how far I may confide in their use.
In the first place, I know that I exist, and have senses whereby I am affected. This is a truth so striking that I am compelled to acquiesce in it. But have I properly a distinct sense of my existence, or do I only know it from my various sensations? This is my first doubt; which, at present, it is impossible for me to resolve: for, being continually affected by sensations, either directly from the objects or from the memory; how can I tell whether my self-consciousness be, or be not, something foreign to those sensations, and independent of them.
My sensations are all internal, as they make me sensible of my own existence; but the cause of them is external and independent, as they affect me without my consent, and do not depend on my will for their production or annihilation. I conceive very clearly, therefore, that the sensation which is internal, and its cause or object which is external, are not one and the same thing.
Thus I know that I not only exist but that other beings exists as well as myself; to with, the objects of my sensations; and though these objects should be nothing but ideas, it is very certain that these ideas are no part of myself.
Now everything that I perceive out of myself, and which acts upon my senses, I call matter; and those portions of matter which I conceive are united in individual beings, I call bodies. Thus all the disputes between Idealists and Materialists signify nothing to me; their distinctions between the appearance and reality of bodies being chimerical.
Hence I have acquired as certain knowledge of the existence of the universe as of my own. I next reflect on the objects of my sensations; and, finding in myself the faculty of comparing them with each other, I perceive myself endowed with an active power with which I was before unacquainted.
To perceive is only to feel or be sensible of things; to compare them is to judge of their existence. To judge of things and to be sensible of them are very different. Things present themselves to our sensations as single and detached from each other, such as they barely exist in nature; but in our intellectual comparison of them they are removed, transported as it were, from place to place, disposed on and beside each other, to enable us to pronounce concerning their difference and similitude. The characteristic faculty of an intelligent, active being is, in my opinion, that of giving a sense to the word exist. In beings merely sensitive, I have searched in vain to discover the like force of intellect; nor can I conceive it to be in their nature. Such passive beings perceive every object singly or by itself; or if two objects present themselves, they are perceived as united into one. Such beings having no power to place one in competition with, beside, or upon the other, they cannot compare them, or judge of their separate existence.
To see two objects at once, is not to see their relations to each other, nor to judge of their difference; as to see many objects, though distinct from one another, is not to reckon their number. I may possibly have in my mind the ideas of a large stick and a small one, without comparing those ideas together, or judging that one is less than the other; as I may look at my hand without counting my fingers. 1 The comparative ideas of greater and less, as well as numerical ideas of one, two, etc., are certainly not sensations, although the understanding produces them only from our sensations.
It has been pretended that sensitive beings distinguish sensations one from the other, by the actual difference there is between those sensations: this, however, demands an explanation. When such sensations are different, a sensitive begin is supposed to distinguish them by their difference; but when they are alike, they can then only distinguish them because they perceive one without the other; for, otherwise, how can two objects exactly alike be distinguished in a simultaneous sensation? Such objects must necessarily be blended together and taken for one and the same; particularly according to that system of philosophy in which it is pretended that the sensations, representative of extension, are not extended.
When two comparative sensations are perceived, they make both a joint and separate impression; but their relation to each other is not necessarily perceived in consequence of either. If the judgment we form of this relation were indeed a mere sensation, excited by the objects, we should never be deceived in it, for it can never be denied that I truly perceive what I feel.
How, therefore, can I be deceived in the relation between these two sticks, particularly, if they are not parallel? Why do I say, for instance, that the little one is a third part as long as the great one, when it is in reality only a fourth? Why is not the image, which is the sensation, conformable to its model, which is the object? It is because I am active when I judge, the operation which forms the comparison is defective, and my understanding, which judges of relations, mixes its errors with the truth of those sensations which are representative of objects.
Add to this the reflection, which I am certain you will think striking after duly weighing it, that if we were merely passive in the use of our senses, there would be no communication between them: so that it would be impossible for us to know that the body we touched with our hands and the object we saw with our eyes were one and the same. Either we should not be able to perceive external objects at all, or they would appear to exist as five perceptible substances of which we should have no method of ascertaining the identity.
Whatever name be given to that power of the mind which assembles and compares my sensations,—call it attention, meditation, reflection, or whatever you please,—certain it is that it exists in me, and not in the objects of those sensations. It is I alone who produce it, although it is displayed only in consequence of the impressions made on me by those objects. Without being so far master over myself as to perceive or not to perceive at pleasure, I am still more or less capable of making an examination into the objects perceived.
I am not, therefore, a mere sensitive and passive, but an active and intelligent being; and, whatever philosophers may pretend, lay claim to the honor of thinking. I know only that truth depends on the existence of things, and not on my understanding which judges of them; and that the less such judgment depends on me, the nearer I am certain of approaching the truth. Hence my rule of confiding more on sentiment than reason is confirmed by reason itself.
Being thus far assured of my own nature and capacity, I begin to consider the objects about me; regarding myself, with a kind of shuddering, as a creature thrown on the wide world of the universe, and as it were lost in an infinite variety of other beings, without knowing anything of what they are, either among themselves or with regard to me.
Everything that is perceptible to my senses is matter, and I deduce all the essential properties of matter from those sensible qualities, which cause it to be perceptible, and which are inseparable from it. I see it sometimes in motion and at other times at rest. This rest may be said to be only relative; but as we perceive degrees in motion, we can very clearly conceive one of the two extremes which is rest; and this we conceive so distinctly, that we are even induced to take that for absolute rest which is only relative. Now motion cannot be essential to matter, if matter can be conceived at rest. Hence I infer that neither motion nor rest are essential to it; but motion being an action, is clearly the effect of cause, of which rest is only the absence. When nothing acts on matter, it does not move; it is equally indifferent to motion and rest; its natural state, therefore, is to be at rest.
Again, I perceive in bodies two kinds of motion; that is a mechanical or communicated motion, and a spontaneous or voluntary one. In the first case, the moving cause is out of the body moved, and in the last, exists within it. I shall not hence conclude, however, that the motion of a watch, for example, is spontaneous; for if nothing should act upon it but the spring, that spring would not wind itself up again when once down. For the same reason, also, I should as little accede to the spontaneous motion of fluids, nor even to heat itself, the cause of their fluidity.
You will ask me if the motions of animals are spontaneous? I will freely answer, I cannot positively tell, but analogy speaks in the affirmative. You may ask me further, how I know there is such a thing as spontaneous motion? I answer, because I feel it. I will to move my arm, and, accordingly, it moves without the intervention of any other immediate cause. It is in vain to attempt to reason me out of this sentiment; it is more powerful than any rational evidence. You might as well attempt to convince me that I do not exist.
If the actions of men are not spontaneous, and there be no such spontaneous action in what passes on earth, we are only the more embarrassed to conceive what is the first cause of all motion. For my part I am so fully persuaded that the natural state of matter is a state of rest, and that it has in itself no principle of activity, that whenever I see a body in motion, I instantly conclude that it is either an animated body or that its motion is communicated to it. My understanding will by no means acquiesce in the notion that unorganized matter can move of itself, or be productive of any kind of action.
The visible universe, however, is composed of inanimate matter, which appears to have nothing in its composition of organization, or that sensation which is common to the parts of an animated body, as it is certain that we ourselves, being parts thereof, do not perceive our existence in the whole. The universe, also, is in motion; and its movements being all regular, uniform, and subjected to constant laws, nothing appears therein similar to that liberty which is remarkable in the spontaneous motion of men and animals. The world, therefore, is not a huge self-moving animal, but receives its motions from some foreign cause, which we do not perceive: but I am so strongly persuaded within myself of the existence of this cause, that it is impossible for me to observe the apparent diurnal revolution of the sun, without conceiving that some force must urge it forward; or if it is the earth itself that turns, I cannot but conceive that some hand must turn it.
If it be necessary to admit general laws that have no apparent relation to matter, from what fixed point must that enquiry set out? Those laws, being nothing real or substantial, have some prior foundation equally unknown and occult. Experience and observation have taught us the laws of motion; these laws, however, determine effects only without; these laws, however, determine effects only without displaying their causes; and, therefore, are not sufficient to explain the system of the universe. Descartes could form a model of the heavens and earth with dice; but he could not give their motions to those dice, nor bring into play his centrifugal force without the assistance of a rotary motion. Newton discovered the law of attraction; but attraction alone would soon have reduced the universe into one solid mass: to this law, therefore, he found it necessary to add a projectile force, in order to account for the revolution of the heavenly bodies. Could Descartes tell us by what physical law his vortices were put and kept in motion? Could Newton produce the hand that first impelled the planets in the tangent of their respective orbits?
1. M. de la Condamine tells of a people who knew how to reckon only as far as three. Yet these people must often have seen their fingers without ever having counted five.


Originally designed for our first Regina popup shop in the first half of 2016, the Queen City tee has since become a permanent member of Hardpressed's collection. Printed on a super soft black tri-blend tee. Amen.


Or: "If Stalin only knew! Tell Stalin, please , tell Stalin!!
A brown shirt. How retro can you get?
I can't speak for the Kochs, but I consider my home the most personal of my possessions. Like most socialists, Myerson likely designates as "community property" all those things he does NOT possess.
Many made their brief acquaintance with Comrade Blotkhin in the modern facility in the basement of the Lubyanka. In the end, the man who ordered it built, Beria, met him in a far different way than he had ever expected to. Beria went like the coward he was, in his skyvies with his hands in cuffs hanging over the hook,begging for his life. He got the same mercy he had given so many before him.
Revolution usually eats its young, and anyone else that happens to be too handy. Beria learned the hard way, as did Robespierre during the revolution after which the Russian version was modeled. Meyerson would be well served if studied a bit of history. He would see his future.
Stalin almost always already knew, and that's why they were there.
Thousands of people wrote to Stalin convinced that "If that nice Mr. Stalin only knew that my boy Ivan was unjustly sent to the gulag, he'll set him free".
I prefer the term 'Dupe' because I believe Useful Idiots are those people not of The Left who allow themselves to be fooled and used by the Left. Dupes are people of a Leftist bent who are too stupid to understand the consequences of their beliefs.
Communism is Evil, so, yes, it is spawned by The Devil.
Bloody brilliant, Di [but, then again, I have a soft spot for anyone who uses the phrase 'Immanentize the Eschaton'].
Or, at least, the movie, starring Tom Courtney, which is quite good.
It must be such a joy to Reid Wilson to live in the funhouse, never venturing into the Real World, staring only at the mirrors.
I seems to me that if you were to dispossess those that you refer as the 1%, it would follow that you have just created a new 1%. As time goes on and the wealth keeps being redistributed you'll reach a point where your 1% may consist only of those who have 40 acres and a mule while everyone else just has 40 acres. What do you do then, quarter the mules and dole out the pieces of carcass?
I'd bet $20 he'd be highly offended by the implication.
Yep. But if people knew how totally screwed up vital records were these days, they'd be appalled.
Almost every courthouse lost vast gobs of info when they moved over to electronic records. Title Curative is a huge business (doesn't pay a ton, but you can always get work).
Electronic form records are full of errors and incompletions.
There's no substitute for a savings deposit box with full copies of all property records, and a strongbox with local copies, especially signed receipts.
Or maybe he can get ahold of the movie version of Orwell's "Animal Farm" which is out there in animated cartoon version.
Communism replaces the nobility of yesterday with the apparatchik of today, who with power and influence becomes the nobility of tomorrow. See also: Napoleon I of France.
Who was it that said that the people are infantile, and need the State to secure them, feed and teach them; but if the People are this way, who makes up the State? I paraphrase badly, I know.
A video featuring Child Pornographer Pete Townshend.
Marx was at least smart enough to recognize that a demand economy ALWAYS has an expiration date.
What these dim bulbs on the left fail to understand is that Socialism and Capitalism are Economic systems primarily. Control over the instrumentalities of government is a secondary (albeit critical and most definitely the ultimate) aim. In other words, with no control over the economy, you have no control over the government.
But economics requires Real Property in order to exist as a concept.
Without Real property, economics is nothing more than one massive, unmanageable budget controlling the way the elites (the 0.000001%) will spend any money that still exists.
In other, other words, If citizens cannot own real property, you have no "economics" of any sort; only totalitarianism.
The thought of this toad kneeling at the edge of a half filled mass grave, hands wired behind his back, blubbering and unable to comprehend why he is there really warms the cockles of my obsidian black heart.
It doesn't make up for the millions of innocents consigned to the same fate.
The Progs and the Islamists are forming an ugodly alliance, as we speak, and will soon be coming after all us conservative, Christians with a vengeance.
Oh Lord, where is that Blessed Hope when you really need it?
Deliberately asking Krugman to tutor you PROVES a disdain for economics.
Now you're the one engaging in Moral Equivalence. While, yes, there are some similarities between the apparatchiks of today and the nobility of times past, clearly the latter were generally not acting in the service of Totalitarianism. Let us not forget that it was the Nobility in England that forced King John to sign Magna Carta. Monarchy does not equal Totalitarianism.
I prolly don't pronounce it correctly, so points off for that.
I'd be surprised if he even got the implication, given the historical ignorance he's already displayed.
See the Monty Python parody of Robin Hood about Dennis Moore.
No, not equivalence in morality, just how societal cycles. In France and Russia and America, there were nobles. They were violently replaced by apparatchiks, prols, and uncommon commoners (in the American sense). After a time, these ruling folks put on airs, called themselves elite and created self-licking ice-cream cones to prove their elite-ness/nobility. The Robespierres, Berias, and Burrs get flushed out and decadence follows. Just a cycle, not an equivalence. Neither France nor Russia had a George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson to create and manage a stable, rathr peaceful aftermath.


text:
Memorials of London and London Life in the 13th, 14th and 15th Centuries
Memorials: 1375
Memorials of London and London Life in the 13th, 14th and 15th Centuries. Originally published by Longmans, Green, London, 1868.
Punishment of the Pillory, for stealing pork and fowls.
Lease of a moveable Stall, beneath the Gate of Ludgate.
Lease of a Garden in Tower Ward, near the City Wall.
Indenture made between the Woodmongers of London and John Baddeby.
The Porters of the City Gates sworn that they will prevent Lepers from entering the City.
Money given for cleansing the Fosses, in return for Masses for the soul of Thomas Legge.
Punishment of the Thewe, inflicted upon a Common Scold.
Terms of reconciliation between the Parishioners of St. Iwayn and St. Nicholas and John Hoklee, spicer.
Ordinance restricting the length of the Alestakes of Taverns.
Grant of the dwelling-house over the Gate of Crepulgate.
Punishment for forestalling geese, in Holborne.
Grant of the dwelling-house over the Gate of Aldrichesgate.
Ordinances as to Poulterers; the Thames, and the Fosses; and common Beggars.
Delivery unto John Costantyn by the Chamberlain of 438 documents under seal.
Punishment of the Pillory, for frauds upon Hucksters of ale.
Articles of the Cordwainers, or Tawyers.
48 Edward III. A.D. 1375. Letter-Book G. fol. cccxxvi. (Latin.)
Robert Colyer, of the County of York, was brought before the Mayor and Aldermen on Tuesday after the Feast of St. Hilary [13 January], in the 48th year etc., with a fillet of pork and two fowls, which on the Monday before, in presence of the said Mayor, while he, the same Mayor, was at St. Nicholas Flesh Shambles, in London, to make assay of flesh and fowl there, he took by stealth, and carried off.
And being questioned thereon how he would acquit himself, he could not deny the same. Therefore it was awarded that he should have the punishment of the pillory, there to remain for one hour, together with the fillet and fowls aforesaid; the reason for his punishment being there publicly proclaimed.
49 Edward III. A.D. 1375. Letter-Book H. fol. xiii. (Latin.)
"This indenture witnesseth, that William Walleworthe, Mayor, the Aldermen, and the Commonalty of London, have granted by these presents, with unanimous consent, unto Robert de Lenne, juweler, and Johanna, his wife, that they shall have and hold a moveable stall, situate beneath the Gate of Ludgate, on the side where the Friars (fn. 1) Preachers is situate; namely, between the upper post of that gate, situate near to the house which Thomas atte Crouch, sporiere, there holds, and the lower post of the gate aforesaid; that they may there expose their things for sale, in such manner as they have been wont heretofore there to have their stall: to have and to hold the same unto them, and either of them, from the Feast of Easter next after the date of these presents, to the end of ten years then next ensuing, fully to be completed; they rendering yearly to the Chamberlain of the Guildhall, for the time being, 40 shillings for the same etc. (fn. 2) Given at the Guildhall of the City of London, the last day of March, in the 49th year etc."
"To all persons who this present writing indented shall see or hear, William de Waleworthe, Mayor, the Aldermen, and the Commonalty of London, greeting in the Lord. Know ye that we, with unanimous consent and will, have let, and by this our present deed indented confirmed, unto John Watlyngtone, serjeant, a garden situate in Tower Ward, near to Londonwal, which John Scot lately held; being between the garden which Geoffrey Puppe holds, on the North side, and the garden which William Lambourne holds, on the South: to have and to hold the same to him and his assigns for the term of 30 years next ensuing; he paying 10 shillings yearly for the same etc. (fn. 3) Given at London, the Monday next after the Feast of the Nativity of Saint John the Baptist [24 June], in the 49th year etc."
49 Edward III. A.D. 1375. Letter-Book H. fol. xx. (Norman French.)
"This indenture, made between John Joudelayn, Robert Potenhale, John Lyghtefote, Robert Parys, John Asshurst, Walter Potenhale, William Shrympelmersshe, Roger Yeokeshale, Thomas Hert, John Asshelee, and Thomas Freke, citizens and dealers of London, of the one part, and John Baddeby, of Tappeleawe, (fn. 4) in the County of Buckingham, of the other part, witnesseth, that whereas a dissension arose and was moved between the said dealers, and other dealers, as well of the City of London as among the people in the country, because that the same John claimed, as of right, to have custom and certain contribution from every vessel passing and coming through his loke, (fn. 5) called 'Baddebyesloke,' which the said John has there standing in the water of Thames;—as to the which the said dealers, as well for themselves as for all others having vessels in the said water, have made suit against the said John Baddeby before the Council of our Lord the King; insomuch that he, the said John Baddeby, has well understood and perceived that he has no right to demand the contribution aforesaid:—thereupon, the said John Baddeby has disclaimed and renounced, for himself and his heirs, all manner of actions, demands, and challenges, in any manner accustomed, and all contribution from vessels passing and repassing by the water of Thames from henceforth: so that all dealers, with their vessels, may freely and quietly pass through the said loke, when they may please, without hindrance or demand of the said John and his heirs, or of any other person in their name, by reason of their passing, for all time to come. In witness whereof, the parties aforesaid have to these indentures interchangeably set their seals. Given at London, the 28th day of June, in the year of Grace 1375, and the 49th year of the reign of King Edward, after the Conquest the Third."
49 Edward III. A.D. 1375. Letter-Book H. fol. xx. (Latin.)
William Duerhirst, barbir, porter of Algate, and the several porters of Bisshopesgate, Crepulgate, Aldrichesgate, Neugate, Ludgate, Bridge Gate, and the Postern, (fn. 6) —were sworn before the Mayor and Recorder, on the Monday next after the Feast of St. Bartholomew the Apostle [24 August], in the 49th year etc., that they will well and trustily keep the Gates and Postern aforesaid, each in his own office and bailiwick; and will not allow lepers to enter the City, or to stay in the same, or in the suburbs thereof; and if any one shall bring any leprous person to any such Gate, or to the Postern aforesaid, or if any lepers or leper shall come there, and wish to enter, such persons or person shall be prohibited by the porter from entering; and if, such prohibition notwithstanding, such persons or person shall attempt to enter, then they or he shall be distrained by their or his horses or horse, if they or he shall have any such, and by their outer garment; the which such persons or person are not to have back, without leave of the Mayor, for the time being. And if even then such persons or person shall attempt to enter, they or he shall be attached by their bodies or body, and in safe custody be kept, until as to such persons or person it shall by the Mayor, for the time being, have been otherwise ordained.
And further, the same porters were told, on pain of the pillory, that they must well and trustily observe and keep this Ordinance, as aforesaid.
William Cook, forman (fn. 7) at Le Loke, (fn. 8) and William Walssheman, forman at Hakeney, were sworn that they will not bring lepers, or know of their being brought, into the City aforesaid; but that they will inform the said porters, and prevent the said lepers from entering, so far as they may.
49 Edward III. A.D. 1375. Letter-Book H. fol. xxi. (Latin.)
Be it remembered, that on Friday the last day of August, in the 49th year etc., William Eynesham, Chamberlain of the Guildhall, received from Sir Thomas Goldyngtone, Rector of the Church of St. Christopher, William Wodehous, Richard Wylesdone, and Roger Claveryng, vendors of the tenements which belonged to Thomas Legge, (fn. 9) and disposers of the moneys arising therefrom, 100 pounds of such moneys; which they, of their own free will, granted unto the Mayor and Commonalty for cleansing the Fosses of the city aforesaid; on condition that the Chaplains celebrating in the Chapel of St. Mary at the Guildhall, should have the soul of the said Thomas, and the souls of Alice, Margery, and Simon Legge, in their Masses and prayers commended unto God.
The said Chamberlain afterwards accounted, after the Feast of St. Michael [29 September], in the 49th year, for all moneys received and expended between the Feast of St. Michael in the 48th year etc. and the Feast aforesaid; among which moneys, the same 100 pounds were accounted for, as having been expended in cleansing the said Fosses.
Alice Shether was brought before the Mayor, on Tuesday the 4th day of September, in the 49th year etc., for that at the Wardmote of John Haddele, Alderman of Tower Ward, she was indicted for being a common scold; and for that all the neighbours, dwelling in that vicinity, by her malicious words and abuse were so greatly molested and annoyed; she sowing envy among them, discord, and ill-will, and repeatedly defaming, molesting, and backbiting many of them, sparing neither rich nor poor; to the great damage of the persons and neighbours there dwelling, and against the Ordinance of the City.
Wherefore, upon the complaint of the said Alderman, and of many of her neighbours in the same Ward, as well as at the suit of the Mayor and Aldermen having the governance of the City, the said Alice was questioned on the matters aforesaid, and it was enquired of her how she would acquit herself thereof; whereupon, she said she was in no way guilty of the things aforesaid, and put herself upon the country as to the same, etc.
The jury, by Robert Kestevene and eleven others, said upon their oath,—that she is guilty of all the things above charged against her. Therefore it was awarded that she should have the punishment of the pillory, called the "thewe," for women ordained, there to stand for one hour. And precept was given to the Sheriffs to have proclamation made of the nature of her offence.
49 Edward III. A.D. 1375. Letter-Book H. fol. xxi. (Latin and Norman French.)
(fn. 10) Be it remembered, that on the 7th day of September, in the 49th year etc., came the reputable men, parishioners of St. Iwayn (fn. 11) and St. Nicholas Flesh Shambles, in the Ward of Farndone Within, and delivered unto William Waleworthe, the Mayor, a certain petition, in these words.—
(fn. 12) "Unto the honourable Lords, the Mayor and Recorder of the City of London, shew the good folks of the Parishes of St. Jwayn and St. Nicholas Fleshameles, in the Ward of Farndone Within, that whereas dissensions have existed between the said good folks and one John Hoklee, spicer, by reason of certain grievances and annoyances which the said John, night and day, has in flicted upon the said good folks; so much so, that all the neighbours have been many times aggrieved and damaged thereby, as well by night as by day, as before stated:—as to such dissensions the parties above mentioned, by leave of your Lordships, have agreed, that the said John Hoklee, from henceforth, himself or by his servants, or any one of his company, shall not commit any affray, grievance, or damage, against his neighbours aforesaid, but towards his neighbours shall peaceably conduct himself. And that the same may be well and loyally observed on part of the said John, the parties above mentioned have submitted unto your discreetness, that, in such manner as you shall think proper, the said John shall be bound unto the Chamber of the Guildhall." (fn. 13)
49 Edward III. A.D. 1375. Letter-Book H. fol. xxii. (Latin.)
On Friday the Feast of St. Matthew the Apostle [21 September], in the 49th year etc., at the prayer of the Commonalty, making plaint that the alestakes projecting in front of the taverns in Chepe, and elsewhere in the City, extended too far over the King's highway, so as to impede those riding there, and other persons, and, by reason of their excessive weight, did tend to the great deterioration of the houses in which they were placed;—it was ordained and granted by the Mayor and Aldermen, as a befitting remedy for the same, and all the taverners of the City being summoned, orders were given unto them, on pain of paying 40 pence to the Chamber of the Guildhall every time the said Ordinance should be contravened, that in future no one should have an alestake bearing his sign, or leaves, (fn. 14) projecting or extending over the King's highway more than seven feet in length at the utmost: the said Ordinance to begin to take effect at the Feast of St. Michael [29 September] then next ensuing, and always in future to be in force.
"To all persons who this present writing indented shall see or hear, William de Waleworthe, Mayor, the Aldermen, and the Commonalty of London, greeting in the Lord. Know ye that we, with unanimous consent and will, by reason of the good service by John Wallyngtone, serjeant, Common Crier of the city aforesaid, unto us oftentimes done, and hereafter to be done, have granted by these presents unto the same John all the dwellinghouse situate over the Gate of Crepulgate, with the chambers and other edifices over the same gate being, together with a stable to the same gate annexed; to have and to hold the same unto him, the same John, for the whole term of his life, he receiving and keeping there all prisoners by the Mayor and Aldermen, during the life of him, the same John, thither to be sent etc. (fn. 15) Given at London, the Monday next after the Feast of St. Michael the Archangel [29 September], in the 49th year etc."
On Tuesday next before the Feast of St. Luke the Evangelist [18 October], in the 49th year etc., John Clerk, the Younger, poulterer, was attached to make answer to John Haddele and William Neuport, Sheriffs of London, on their plaint, that whereas from of old it has been ordained that no poulterer or other person shall buy poultry of any one, except in the common market, and in a place thereunto assigned, and that no one shall meet any victuals coming to the City of London, or in any way affeer, forestal, or buy, the same, before that they shall have come to full market, and then not before the time appointed therefor;—the said John, on Saturday the Feast of the Translation of St. Edward the King [13 October], in the 49th year, after dinner, bought of John Spenser 22 geese in Holborne, when coming to the City, he forestalling the same, against the Statute and custom of the City etc.
And the said John Clerk personally appeared before the Mayor and Aldermen; and being asked how he would acquit himself thereof, in full Court he acknowledged that he had bought the geese, in form as against him the same Sheriffs had declared. Therefore it was awarded, that the 22 geese aforesaid should be forfeited to the use of the Sheriffs.
49 Edward III. A.D. 1375. Letter-Book H. fol. xxiv. (Latin.)
"Be it remembered, that we, William Waleworthe, Mayor of London, and the assembly of Aldermen, with the assent of the Commonalty of the city aforesaid, by reason of the good service by Ralph Strode, Common Countor (fn. 16) of the said city, unto us done, and hereafter to be done, have given and granted unto the same Ralph all the dwelling-house, together with the garden, and all other its appurtenances, situate over the Gate of Aldrichesgate; to have and to hold the same, so long as he, the said Ralph, shall remain in the said office of Countor; it being understood that the Chamberlain, for the time being, during the next year shall cause at his own expense all and singular the defaults in the said house to be repaired etc. In witness whereof, we have caused the said grant among the Records in this Book of the Chamber of our City to be entered, the 27th day of October, in the 49th year of the reign of King Edward the Third."
49 Edward III. A.D. 1375. Letter-Book H. fol. xv. (Latin and Norman French.)
(fn. 17) Proclamation made in the time of John Warde, Mayor, on the Wednesday next after the Feast of St. Martin [11 November], in the 49th year.
(fn. 18) "That no freeman poulterer shall stand at the Carfukes (fn. 19) of the Ledenhalle, within house or without, with rabbits, fowls, or other poultry, for sale; but they are to expose the same for sale along the wall towards the West of the Church of St. Michael upon Cornhille; that so, all the foreign poulterers may stand by themselves, and expose their poultry for sale at the said corner of Ledenhalle, (fn. 20) without any freeman poulterer coming among them.
"Also,—that the foreign poulterers who enter by Neugate and Aldrichesgate, shall sell their poultry on the Pavement before the Friars Minors, near to the Fountain there.
"Also,—that the freemen poulterers there shall stand before the Church of St. Nicholas Flesshammeles, (fn. 21) and shall there sell their poultry, so as not to meddle with the foreigners in selling or in buying; on pain of forfeiture of the poultry between them sold, and of their being committed to prison at the will of the Mayor.
"Also,—that no freemen poulterers, themselves or by their wives, or by any other persons on their behalf, shall buy any manner of poultry of any of the foreign poulterers, privily or openly, before the hour of Prime rung. And that no person, of whatsoever condition he be, shall bring or expose for sale any manner of poultry that is rotten or stinking, or not proper for the body of man; on pain of forfeiting the same, and of punishment of the pillory.
"Also,—that no foreigner who brings poultry to the City, shall lodge in, or carry his poultry to, the house of any free poulterer; on pain of forfeiture of the poultry, and of imprisonment of them both.
"Also,—that no one shall by night or by day, privily or openly, throw rubbish, dung, or any manner of filth or other thing, into the water of Thames, or into the Fosses of the City, or any other place, to the damage of the said water of Thames, the Fosses, or the said city; but let every one keep the streets clean according to this Ordinance. And let no one cause any water or other thing to be thrown from the windows, by night or by day, within the franchise of the said city; but let them bring the same down to the ground below, and put it into the kennel there; on pain of imprisonment, and of paying 2 shillings, every time. And if any one shall be accused thereof, and cannot acquit himself by oath, let him have such penalty.
"Also,—that no one who, by handicraft, or by the labour of his body, can gain his living, shall counterfeit the begging poor, or shall set any one to beg for his living in the said city; on pain of imprisonment, and of being punished according to the ordinance of the Mayor and Aldermen thereon; and that nolazar (fn. 22) shall go about in the said city, on the same pain: and that every constable and bedel shall have power to take such persons, and bring them to Cornhulle and put them in the stocks, there to remain according to the Ordinance made thereupon."
49 Edward III. A.D. 1375. Letter-Book H. fol. xxv. (Latin.)
Be it remembered, that on the 22nd day of November, in the 49th year etc., William Eynsham, Chamberlain of the Guildhall of London, by precept of John Warde, the Mayor, and William de Haldene, the Recorder, in presence of John Pecche, John Aubrey, and Adam Stable, Aldermen, delivered unto John Costantyn, (fn. 23) son of John Costantyn, 438 written deeds and other remembrances under seal; together with divers other scrolls, in 15 cases, not under seal; the whole of which had been deposited in a certain chest; which chest Thomas Sallowe, late Master of the College of St. Thomas of Acon, in London, had delivered unto John de Cauntebrigge, the then Chamberlain of the said city, for safe custody etc., to the use of the said John, son of John Costantyn. (fn. 24)
49 Edward III. A.D. 1375. Letter-Book H. fol. xxvi. (Latin.)
Be it remembered, that William Felde, late serving-man to a serjeant of William Waleworthe, late Mayor of London, was committed to prison, for that he went to the houses of divers hucksters in London, and pretended that he was an officer sent by John Warde, the Mayor, to seize as forfeited such ale as in their houses he might find. And as it was known to them that he was such servant of the late serjeant, and they thought that he was telling the truth; and as he carried tablets in his hands in which he purposed to write their names, to present them to the Mayor; the same huck sters, being in dread of what he said, asked him to take something of them, and to let them sell their ale as before. Whereupon, from one of them he took 12 pence, from another 6 pence, and so divers gifts from several of them; of his own malice and falsity, to the disgrace and shame of all the officers of the City, and to the manifest scandal and damage of all the commonalty.
Upon which matters, on Saturday, the morrow of St. Andrew the Apostle [30 November], in the 49th year etc., being questioned before the said Mayor and Aldermen, he was asked how he would acquit himself thereof; whereupon, he acknowledged the things so imputed to him. Therefore it was awarded, that he should have the punishment of the pillory, to stand for one hour of the day upon the same.
49 Edward III. A.D. 1375. Letter-Book H. fol. xxvi. (Latin and Norman French.)
(fn. 25) On Monday next after the Feast of St. Andrew the Apostle [30 November], in the 49th year etc., came the reputable men of the trade of Cordwainers, and presented to John Warde, the Mayor, and the Aldermen, a certain petition, in these words.—
(fn. 26) "To the Mayor and Aldermen of the City of London pray the good folks of the trade of Cordwainers of the same city, that it may please you to grant unto them the Articles that follow, for the profit of the common people; that so, what is good and right may be done unto all manner of folks, for saving the honour of the City, and lawfully governing the said trade.
"In the first place,—that if any one of the said trade shall sell to any person shoes of bazen as being cordewayne, or of calfleather for ox-leather, in deceit of the common people, and to the scandal of the said trade, he shall pay to the Chamber of the Guildhall, the first time that he shall be convicted thereof, 40 pence; the second time, half a mark; and the third time the same, and further, at the discretion of the Mayor and Aldermen.
"Also,—that no one of the said trade shall keep house within the franchise, if he be not free of the said city, and one knowing his trade; and that no one shall be admitted to the freedom without the presence of the Wardens of the said trade, bearing witness to his standing; on the pain aforesaid.
"Also,—if any one of the said trade shall be found offending, touching the trade, or rebellious against the Wardens thereof, such person shall not make complaint to any one of another trade, by reason of the discord or dissension that may have arisen between them; but he shall be ruled by the good folks of his own trade. And if he shall differ from them, as acting against right, then let the offence be adjudged upon before the Mayor and Aldermen: and if he be found rebellious, against the Ordinance aforesaid, let him pay to the Chamber the sum abovementioned.
"Also,—that no one of the said trade shall entice or purloin the servant of another from the service of his master, by paying him more than is ordained by the said trade; on the pain aforesaid.
"Also,—that no one shall carry out of his house any wares touching his trade, for sale in market or elsewhere, save only at a certain place, situate between Sopereslane and the Conduit; and that, at a certain time of the day, that is to say, between Prime and Noon. And that no shoes shall exceed the measure of seven inches, so that (fn. 27) the wares may be surveyed by the good folks of the said trade; because of the deceit upon the common people that might ensue, and the scandal of the said trade; on the pain aforesaid.
"Also,—that no one shall expose his wares openly for sale in market on Sundays, at any place; but only within his own dwelling, to serve the common people; on the pain aforesaid.
"Also,—that if any one has to do with old shoes, he shall not meddle with new shoes among the old, in deceit of the common people, and to the scandal of the said trade; on the pain aforesaid."
1. The Priory of the Black Friars.
2. Followed by power of distress upon their goods and chattels on the Stall, and clause of warranty.
3. Followed by power of entry and distress, and clause of warranty.
4. Now Taplow, near Maidenhead.
5. This was probably identical with the present Boveney Lock, two miles from Eton.
6. Near the Tower.
7. Foreman, or manager.
8. The Lock, adjacent to Southwark; these were Lazar-houses for Lepers.
9. The same person, no doubt, who was Mayor in 1347 and 1354; see page 331 ante, Note 1. Collins (Peerage) states that he was slain in Wat Tyler's Insurrection in 1381; but the person slain was his son, beyond a doubt. See post s.a. 1381, June.
10. In Latin.
11. Or Ewen. These two Parishes now form that of Christ Church, Newgate Street.
12. In French.
13. The result is stated at considerable length, that both the said parishioners and John Hoklee, were bound on certain penalties to behave peaceably towards each other.
14. The "bush" hung in front of most taverns; whence the well-known saying,—"Good wine needs no bush."
15. Followed by covenants to repair, and duly keep the prisoners; with power of re-entry to the Chamberlain, and clause of warranty. This is immediately followed by a grant to John Cobbe, serjeant of the Chamber of the City, for his good services, past and future, of the chambers of the Postern, near the Tower of London, with guard of that Gate, for the term of his life; the same date as above.
16. Or Pleader. At this period the Common Serjeant begins to be more generally styled the "Common Countor,"
18. In French. These Ordinances are selected from a very large number; the rest being merely repetitions of those preiously given in these pages.
19. See page 300 ante, Note 1.
20. From this we may conclude that the "Carfax" of Leadenhall stood at the spot where Gracechurch Street intersects Cornhill.
21. Flesh Shambles.
22. Or leper.
23. This probably was a different person from the John Constantyn who was beheaded in the City in February 1384. See under that year.
24. A Richard Costantyn had been Sheriff, in 1321.
27. Possibly there may be something omitted here; as the measure of 7 inches (which cannot have been the length) bears no reference to what follows.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl