Born: Benvenuto Cellini,
celebrated silversmith and sculptor in metal, 1500,
Florence; Denzil Hollis, reforming patriot, 1597,
Haughton, Northamptonshire; Sir Matthew Hale, eminent
judge, 1609, Alderley, Gloucestershire; Nicolas
Boileau, poetical satirist, 1636, France; Bishop
George Horne, biblical expositor, 1730, Otham, near
Maidstone; Lydia Huntley Sigourney, American poet,
1791, Norwich, United States.
Died: Charles II of
Spain, 1700; Dr. John Radcliffe, founder of the
Radcliffe Library, Oxford, 1714; Dean Humphrey
Prideaux, author of Connection of the History of the
Old and New Testament, 1724, Norwich; Louisa de
Kerouaille, Duchess of Portsmouth, mistress of Charles
II., 1734; Alexander Cruden, author of the
Concordance, 1770, Islington; Edward Shuter, comedian,
1776; Lord George Gordon, originator of the No-Popery
Riots of 1780, 1793, Newgate, London.
Feast day: The Festival
of All-Saints. St. Beniguus, apostle of Burgundy,
martyr, 3rd century. St. Austremonius, 3rd century. St.
Caesarius, martyr, 300. St. Mary, martyr, 4th century.
St. Marcellus, bishop of Paris, confessor, beginning
of 5th century. St. Harold, king of Denmark, martyr,
980.
ALL SAINTS DAY
This festival takes its origin
from the conversion, in the seventh century, of the
Pantheon at Rome into a Christian place of worship,
and its dedication by Pope Boniface IV to the Virgin
and all the martyrs. The anniversary of this event was
at first celebrated on the 1st of May, but the day was
subsequently altered to the 1st of November, which was
thenceforth, under the designation of the Feast of All
Saints, set apart as a general commemoration in their honour. The festival has
been retained by the Anglican
Church.
SIR
MATTHEW HALE: DRINKING OF HEALTHS
The illustrious chief-justice
left an injunction or advice for his grandchildren in
the following terms:
'I will not have you begin or
pledge any health, for it is become one of the
greatest artifices of drinking, and occasions of
quarrelling in the kingdom. If you pledge one
health, you oblige yourself to pledge another, and a
third, and so onwards; and if you pledge as many as
will be drank, you must be debauched and drunk. If
they will needs know the reason of your refusal, it is
a fair answer: " That your grandfather that brought
you up, from whom, under God, you have the estate you
enjoy or expect, left this in command with you, that
you should never begin or pledge a health."'
Sir Matthew might well condemn
health-drinking, for in his days it was used, or
rather abused, for the encouragement of excesses at
which all virtuous people must have been appalled. The
custom has, however, a foundation and a sanction in
the social feelings, and consequently, though it has
had many ups and downs, it has always hitherto, in one
form or another, maintained its ground. As far back as
we can go amongst our ancestors, we find it
established. And, notwithstanding the frowns of
refinement on the one hand, and tee-totalism on the
other, we undoubtedly see it occasionally practised.
Among the earliest instances
of the custom may be cited the somewhat familiar one
of the health, said to have been drunk by Rowena to
Vortigern, and which is described by Verstegan after
this fashion:
'She came into the room where the king
and his guests were sitting, and making a low
obedience to him, she said: " [Vaes heal, hlaford
Cyning" (Be of health, Lord King). Then, having drunk,
she presented it [the cup] on her knees to the king,
who, being told the meaning of what she said, together
with the custom, took the cup, saying: "Drink heal"
[Drink health], and drank also.'
William of Malmesbury adverts
to the custom thus:
'It is said it first took its
rise from the death of young King Edward (called the
Martyr), son to Edgar, who was, by the contrivance of Elfrida,
his step-mother, traitorously stabbed in the back as
he was drinking.'
The following curious old
delineation, from the Cotton Manuscript, seems
to agree with the reported custom. The centre figure
appears to be addressing himself to his companion, who
tells him that he pledges him, holding up his knife in
token of his readiness to assist and protect him:
In another illustration of the
same period, the custom of individuals pledging each
other on convivial occasions is more prominently
represented:
The following account of a
curious custom in connection with the drinking of
healths, is from a contribution to Notes and Queries,
by a Lichfield correspondent, who says, that in that
ancient city, it has been observed from time
immemorial, at dinners given by the mayor, or at any
public feast of the corporation. The first two toasts
given are 'The Queen,' and 'Weale and worship,' both
which are drunk out of a massive embossed silver cup,
holding three or four quarts, presented to the
corporation in 1666, by the celebrated Elias Ash-mole,
a native of the city. The ceremony itself is by the
same writer thus more particularly described:
'The
mayor drinks first, and on his rising, the persons on
his right and left also rise. He then hands the cup to
the person on his right side, when the one next to him
rises, the one on the left of the mayor still
standing. Then the cup is passed across the table to
him, when his left-hand neighbour rises; so that there
are always three standing at the same time�one next to
the person who drinks, and one opposite to him.'
From
the curious old letter of thanks for this cup we quote
the following lines:
'Now, sir, give us leave to
conclude by informing you that, according to your
desire (upon the first receipt of your Poculum
Charitatis, at the sign of the George for England), we
filled it with Catholic wine, and devoted it a sober
health to our most gracious king, which (being of so
large a continent) pass the hands of thirty to pledge;
nor did we forget yourself in the next place, being
our great Meccenas.'
This letter of thanks is dated,
'Litchfield, 26th January 1666.' The whole of the
original letter appears in Harwood's Lichfield.
The custom as practised in the
passing of the renowned 'loving-cup,' at the lord
mayor's feasts in London, is too well known to require
further notice. Another writer in Notes and Queries
says, that the same observance always had place at the
parish meetings, and church wardens' dinners, at St.
Margaret's, Westminster: the cover of the loving-cup
being held over the head of the person drinking by his neighbours on his right
and left hand.'
It appears from Barrington's
Observations on the Ancient Statutes (1766), that the
custom prevailed at Queen's College, Oxford, where the
scholars who wait upon their fellows place their two
thumbs on the table. The writer adds:
'I have heard
that the same ceremony is used in some parts of
Germany, whilst the superior drinks the health of the
inferior. The inferior, during this, places his two
thumbs on the table, and therefore is incapacitated
from making any attempt upon the life of the person
who is drinking.'
The writer on the Lichfield custom
also adverts to this, by the by, when he says that,
'he presumes that though the ceremony is different,
the object is the same as that at Queen's College�viz,
to prevent injury to the person who drinks.'
The practice would appear to
have had its origin at the time when the Danes bore
sway in this country. Indeed, some authors deduce the
expression, 'I'll pledge you,' in drinking, from this
period. It seems that the Northmen, in those days,
would occasionally stab a person while in the act of
drinking. In consequence, people would not drink in
company, unless some one present would be their
pledge, or surety, that they should come to no harm
whilst thus engaged. Nay, at one time, the people
became so intimidated that they would not dare to
drink until the Danes had actually pledged their
honour for their safety!
In Beaumont and Fletcher's
days, it was the custom for the young gallants to stab
themselves in their arms, or elsewhere, in order to 'drink the healthy' of their
mistresses, or to write
their names in their own blood! The following passage
occurs in
Pepys's Diary relative to 'health-drinking:'
'To the Rhenish wine-house, where
Mr. Moore shewed us the French manner, when a health
is drunk, to bow to him that drunk to you, and then
apply yourself to him, whose lady's health is drunk,
and then to the person that you drink to, which I
never knew before: but it seems it is now the
fashion.'
The following remarkable and
solemn passage is found in Ward's Living Speeches of
Dying Christians (in his Sermons):
'My Saviour began to
mee in a bitter cup; and shall I not pledge him? i.
e., drink the same.'
Records of the custom in
many countries, and in many ages, might be
multiplied ad infinitum. It is beyond our present
purpose, however, to give any further illustrations,
beyond the following curious extract from Rich's
Irish Hvbbvb, or the English Hve and Crie (1617).
After a long and wholesome, though severe, tirade
against drunkenness, the quaint old writer says: 'In
former ages, they had no conceits whereby to draw on
drinkennes; their best was, I drinke to you, and I
pledge Lund; till at length some shallow-witted
drunkard found out the carouse, which shortly after
was turned into a hearty draught: but now it is
ingined [enjoined] to the drinking of a health, an
invention of that worth and worthinesse, as it
ispitty the first founder was not hanged, that wee
might haue found out his name in the ancient record
of the Hangman's Register! The institution in
drinking of a health is full of ceremonie, and
obserued by tradition, as the papists doe their
praying to saints.' The singular writer then adds
this description of the performance of the custom:
'He that begins the health, hath his prescribed
orders; first uncovering his head, he takes a full
cup in his hand, and setling his countenance with a
graue aspect, he craues for audience. Silence being
once obtained, hee begins to breath out the name,
peraduenture of some honorable personage that is
worthy of a better regard than to have his name
pollvted at so vnfitting a time, amongst a company
of drunkards; but his health is drunke to, and hee
that pledgeth must likewise of [off] with his cap,
kisse his fingers, and bowing himselfe in signe of a
reuerent acceptance. When the leader sees his
follower thus prepared, he soupes [sups] up his
broath, turnes the bottom of the cuppe vpward, and
in ostentation of his dexteritie, glues the cup a
phylip [fillip], to make it cry tynge [a sort of
ringing sound, denoting that the vessel was emptied
of its contents]. And thus the first scene is
acted.�The cup being newly replenished to the
breadth of a haire, he that is the pledger must now
begin his part, and thus it goes round throughout
the whole company, prouided alwaies by a canon set
downe by the first founder, there must be three at
the least still vncouered, till the health hath had
the full passage; which is no sooner ended, but
another begins againe, and he drinkes a health to
his Lady of little worth, or, peraduenture, to his
Light-heel'd mistris.'
The caustic old writer just
referred to, adds the following remarks in a marginal
note:
'He that first
inuented that vse of drinking healths, had his
braines beat out with a pottle-pot: a most lust end
for inventers of such notorious abuses. And many in
pledging of healths haue ended their lines presently
[early], as example lately in London.'
A few notices may be appended
of the anathemas which have been hurled at the custom
of drinking healths. The first of these is a singular
tract published in 1628, 'by William Prynne, Gent.,
proving the drinking and pledging of Healths to be
sinful, and utterly unlawful unto Christians.'
At the
Restoration, this
work had become scarce, and 'it was
judged meet that Mr. William Prynne's notable book
should be reprinted, few of them being to be had for
money.' The loyalty of the English to Charles IL, was
shewn by such. a frequency of drinking his health, as
to threaten to disturb the public peace, and occasion
a royal proclamation, an extract from which is
subjoined.
'C. R.
Our dislike of those, who
under pretence of affection to us, and our service,
assums to themselves a Liberty of Reviling,
Threatning, and Reproaching of others. There are
likewise another sort of men, of whom we have heard
much, and are sufficiently ashamed, who spend their
time in Taverns, Tipling-houses, and Debauches,
giving no other evidence of their affection to us,
but in Drinking Our HEALTH.'
The following is from a work
published about this period:
'Of Healths drinking, and
Heaven's doom thereon: Part of a Letter from Mr. Ab.
Ramsbotham.
'Within four or five miles
of my house, the first of July (as I take it), at a
town called Geslingham, there were three or four
persons in a shopkeeper's house, drinking of Strong
waters, and of HEALTHS, as 'tis spoken. And all of a
sudden there came a flame of fire down the chimney
with a great crack, as of thunder, or of a canon, or
granado; which for the present struck the men as
dead.
�But afterwards they
recovered; and one of them was, as it were, shot in
the knee, and so up his Breeches and Doublet to his
shoulder; and there it brake out, and split and
brake in pieces the window, and set the house on
fire; the greater part of which burned down to the
ground.
'This hath filled the
Country with wonder, and many speak their judgements
both on it, and of the persons. ABR. RAMSBOTHAM.'
DR.
RADCLIFFE
John Radcliffe, whose name is
perpetuated in so many memorials of his munificence,
was born at Wakefield, in Yorkshire, February 7, 1650,
and educated in the university of Oxford, where he
studied medicine. His books were so few in number,
that on being asked where was his library, he pointed
to a few vials, a skeleton, and a herbal, in one
corner of his room, and exclaimed, with emphasis: 'There, sir, is Radcliffe's
library!'
In 1675, he took
his degree of M.B., and began to practise in Oxford,
where, by some happy cures (especially by his cooling
treatment of the small-pox), he soon acquired a great
reputation. In 1682, he took the degree of M.D., and
went out a Grand Compounder; an imposing ceremony in
those days, and for a century afterwards, all the
members of the college walking in procession, with the
candidate himself, bareheaded, to the Convocation
House. Radcliffe now removed to London, and settled in
Bow Street, Covent Garden, where he soon received
daily, in fees, the sum of twenty guineas, through his
vigorous and decisive method of practice, as well as
his pleasantry and ready wit �many, it is said, even
feigning themselves ill, for the pleasure of having a
few minutes' conversation with the facetious doctor.
The garden in the rear of his house, in Bow Street,
extended to the garden of Sir
Godfrey Kneller, who
resided in the Piazza, Covent Garden. Kneller was fond
of flowers, and had a fine collection. As he was
intimate with the physician, he permitted the latter
to have a door into his garden; but Radcliffe's
servants gathering and destroying the flowers, Kneller
sent him notice that he must shut up the door.
Radcliffe replied peevishly: 'Tell him he may do
anything with it but paint it' "And I,' answered Sir
Godfrey, 'can take anything from him but physic.'
Radcliffe sheaved great
sagacity in resisting the entreaties of the
court-chaplains to change his religion and turn
papist; and
when the Prince of Orange was invited
over, Radcliffe took care that no imputation of guilt
could, by any possibility, attach to him afterwards,
had the Revolution not succeeded. He had, two years
previously, been appointed physician to the Princess
Anne; and when King William came, Radcliffe got the
start of his majesty's physicians, by curing two of
his favourite foreign attendants; for which the king
gave him five hundred guineas out of the privy-purse.
But Radcliffe declined the appointment of one of his
majesty's physicians, considering that the settlement
of the crown was then but insecure. He nevertheless
attended the king, and for the first eleven years of
his reign, received more than 600 guineas annually. In
1689, he succeeded in restoring William sufficiently
to enable him to join his army in Ireland, and gain
the
victory of the Boyne.
In 1691, when the young
Prince William, Duke of Gloucester, was taken ill of
fainting fits, and his life was despaired of, Radcliffe was sent for, and
restored the little
patient, for which Queen Mary ordered her chamberlain
to present him with a thousand guineas. He was now the
great physician of the day; and his neighbour, Dr.
Gibbons, received �1000 per annum from the overflow of
patients who were not able to get admission to
Radcliffe.
In 1692, he sustained a severe
pecuniary loss. He was persuaded by his friend,
Betterton, the famous tragedian, to risk �5000 in a
venture to the East Indies; the ship was captured by
the enemy, with her cargo, worth �120,000. This ruined
the poor player; but Radcliffe received the disastrous
intelligence at the Bull's Head Tavern, in Clare
Market (where he was enjoying himself with several
persons of rank), with philosophic composure; desiring
his companions not to interrupt the circulation of the
glass, for that 'he had no more to do but go up so
many pair of stairs, to make himself whole again.'
Towards the end of 1694, Queen
Mary was seized with small-pox, and the symptoms were
most alarming; her majesty's physicians were at their
wits' end, and the privy-council sent for Radcliffe.
At the first sight of the prescriptions, he rudely
exclaimed, that ' her majesty was a dead woman, for it
was impossible to do any good in her case, where
remedies were given that were so contrary to the
nature of the distemper; yet he would endeavour to do
all that lay in him to give her ease.' There were some
faint hopes for a time, but the queen died.
Some few
months after, Radcliffe's attendance was requested by
the Princess Anne. He had been drinking freely, and
promised speedily to come to St. James's; the princess
grew worse, and a messenger was again despatched to
Radcliffe, who, on hearing the symptoms detailed,
swore by his Maker, 'that her highness' distemper was
nothing but the vapours, and that she was in as good a
state of health as any woman breathing, could she but
believe it.' No skill or reputation could excuse this
rudeness and levity; and he was, in consequence,
dismissed. But his credit remained with the king, who
sent him abroad to attend the Earl of Albemarle, who
had a considerable command in the army; Radcliffe
remained in the camp only a week, succeeded in the
treatment of his patient, and received from King
William �1200, and from Lord Albemarle 400 guineas and
a diamond ring. In 1697, after the king's return from
Loo, being much indisposed at Kensington Palace, he
sent for Radcliffe; the symptoms were dropsical, when
the physician, in his odd way, promised to try to
lengthen the king's days, if he would forbear making
long visits to the Earl of Bradford, with whom the
king was wont to drink very hard. Radcliffe left
behind him a recipe, by following which the king was
enabled to go abroad, to his palace at Loo, in
Holland.
In 1699, the Duke of
Gloucester, heir-presumptive to the crown, was taken
ill, when his mother, the Princess Anne,
notwithstanding her antipathy, sent for Radcliffe, who
pronounced the case hopeless, and abused the two other
physicians, telling them that 'it would have been
happy for this nation had the first been bred up a
basket-maker (which was his father's occupation), and
the last continued making a havock of nouns and
pronouns, in the quality of a country schoolmaster,
rather than have ventured out of his reach, in the
practice of an art which he was an utter stranger to,
and for which he ought to have been whipped with one
of his own rods.'
At the close of this year, the
king, on his return from Holland, where he had not
been abstemious, being much out of health, again sent
for Radcliffe to Kensington Palace; when his majesty,
shewing his swollen ankles, exclaimed 'Doctor, what
think you of these? "Why, Why, truly,' said. Radcliffe,
'I would not have your majesty's two legs for your
three kingdoms.' With this ill-timed jest, though it
passed unnoticed at the moment, his professional
attendance at court terminated.
Anne sent again for Radcliffe
in the dangerous illness of her husband, Prince
George. His disease was dropsy, and the doctor, unused
to flatter, declared that ' the prince had been so
tampered with, that nothing in the art of physic could
keep him alive more than six days '�and his prediction
was verified.
When, in July 1714, Queen Anne
was seized with the sickness which terminated her
life, Radcliffe was sent for; but he was confined by a
fit of gout to his house at Carshalton. He was accused
of refusing to give his professional advice to his
sovereign, and in consequence of this report, durst
scarcely venture out of doors, as he was threatened
with being pulled to pieces if ever he came to London.
Radcliffe died November 1,
1714, 'a victim to the ingratitude of a thankless
world, and the fury of the gout.' By his will he left
his Yorkshire estate to University College, Oxford,
and �5000 for enlargement of the building; to St.
Bartholomew's Hospital, the yearly sum of �500 towards
mending their diet, and �100 yearly for the buying of
linen; and �40,000 for the building of a library at
Oxford, besides �150 a year for the librarian's
salary, �100 a year for the purchase of books, and
another �100 for repairs. The smallness of the annual
sum provided for the purchase of books is remarkable,
and gave occasion to the animadversion, that the main
object of the testator was to erect a splendid
monument to himself. The bulk of the remainder of his
property he left in trust for charitable purposes. The Radcliffe Library is one
of the noblest architectural
adornments of Oxford. It was designed by Gibbs, and is
built on a circular plan, with a spacious dome. It was
originally called the Physic Library, and the books
which it contains are principally confined to works on
medicine and natural science.
ALEXANDER CRUDEN
This persevering and
painstaking compiler, who was appointed by Sir Robert
Walpole bookseller to the queen of George II, died at
his lodgings in Camden Street, Islington, November 1,
1770. The Concordance, which has conferred celebrity
on his name, was published and dedicated to Queen
Caroline in 1737. He was permitted to present a copy
of it in person to her majesty, who, he said, smiled
upon him, and assured him she was highly obliged to
him. The expectations he formed of receiving a solid
proof of the queen's appreciation of the work, were
disappointed by her sudden death within sixteen days
of his reception. Twenty-four years afterwards, he
revised a second edition, and dedicated it to her
grandson, George III For this, and a third edition
issued in 1769, his booksellers gave him �800.
He was often prominently
before the public as a very eccentric enthusiast.
Three times, during his life, he was placed in
confinement by his friends. On the second of these
occasions, he managed to escape from a private lunatic
asylum in which he was chained to his bedstead; when
he immediately brought actions against the proprietor
and physician. Unfortunately for his case, he stated
it himself, and lost it. On his third release, he
brought an action against his sister, from whom he
claimed damages to the amount of �10,000, for
authorising his detention. In this suit also he was
unsuccessful. In the course of his life, he met with
many rebuffs in the prosecution of projects in which
he restlessly embarked, as he considered, for the
public good; for all of which he solaced himself with
printing accounts of his motives, treatment, and
disappointments.
One of his eccentricities
consisted in the assumption of the title of Alexander
the Corrector. In the capacity implied by this term,
he stopped persons whom he met in public places on
Sundays, and admonished them to go home and keep the
Sabbath-day holy; and in many other ways addressed
himself to the improvement of the public morals. He
spent much of his earnings in the purchase of tracts
and catechisms, which he distributed right and left;
and gave away some thousands of hand-bills, on which
were printed the fourth commandment. To enlarge, as
he thought, his sphere of usefulness, he sighed for a
recognition of his mission in high-places; and, to
attain this end, succeeded, after considerable
solicitation, in obtaining the signatures of several
persons of rank to a testimonial of his zeal for the
public good. Armed with this credential, he urged that
the king in council, or an act of legislature, should
formally constitute him Corrector of Morals. However,
his chimerical application was not entertained.
Another eccentricity arose out
of the decided part he took against Mr. Wilkes, when
that demagogue agitated the kingdom. He partly
expressed his intense feeling in his usual mode�by
pamphlet; but more especially evinced his aversion by
effacing the offensive numeral No. 45, wherever he
found it chalked up. For this purpose, he carried in
his pockets a large piece of sponge. He subsequently
included in this obliteration all the obscene
inscriptions with which idle persons were permitted at
that time to disgrace blank walls in the metropolis.
This occupation, says his biographer Blackburn, from
its retrospective character, made his walks very
tedious.
His erratic benevolence
prompted him to visit the prisoners in Newgate daily,
instruct them in the teachings of the gospel, and
encourage them to pay attention, by gifts of money to
the most diligent. This good work he was, however,
induced to relinquish, by finding that his hardened
pupils, directly he had turned his back, spent these
sums in intoxicating liquors. While so engaged, he was
able to prevail upon Lord Halifax to commute a
sentence of death against Richard Potter, found guilty
of uttering a forged will, to one of transportation.
Still animated with a desire
to regenerate the national morals, he besought the
honour of knighthood�not, he declared, for the value
of the title, but from a conviction that that dignity
would give his voice more weight. In pursuit of the
desired distinction, he seems to have given a great
deal of trouble to the lords in waiting and
secretaries of state, and probably exceeded the bounds
of their patience, for, in a commendation of Earl
Paulett, he admits that less-afflicted noblemen got
quit of his importunities by flight.
This earl, he
says, in an account of his attendance at court, 'being goutish in his feet,
could not run away from the
Corrector as others were apt to do.' In 1754, he
offered himself as a candidate to represent the city
of London in parliament. In this contest, he issued
the most singular addresses, referring the sheriffs,
candidates, and liverymen to consider his letters and
advertisements published for some time past, and
especially the appendix to Alexander the Corrector's
Adventures. 'If there is just ground to think that God
will be pleased to make the Corrector an instrument to
reform the nation, and particularly to promote the
reformation, the peace, and prosperity of this great
city, and to bring them into a more religious temper
and conduct, no good man, in such an extraordinary
case, will deny him his vote. And the Corrector's
election is believed to be the means of paving the way
to his being a Joseph, and an useful and prosperous
man.' He also presented his possible election in the
light of the fulfilment of a prophecy. But the
be-wigged, and buttoned, and knee-breeched, and
low-shoed electors only laughed at him. He consoled
himself for the disappointment with which this new
effort was attended, as in former ones, by issuing a
pamphlet.
The most singular of Cruden's
pamphlets detailed his love adventures. He became
enamoured of Miss Elizabeth Abney. The father of
this
lady, Sir Thomas Abney, was a successful merchant, who
was successively sheriff, alderman, lord mayor of
London, and one of the representatives of the city in
parliament. He was a person of considerable
consequence, having been one of the founders of the
Bank of England, of which he was for many years a
director; but his memory is especially honoured from
the fact of its being interwoven with that of Dr.
Watts, who resided with him at Stoke-Newington.
His
daughter inherited a large fortune; and to become
possessed of both, became the Corrector's sanguine
expectation. Miss Abney was deaf to his entreaties.
For months he pestered her with calls, and persecuted
her with letters, memorials, and remonstrances. When
she. left home, he caused. 'praying-bills' to be
distributed in various places of worship, requesting
the prayers of the minister and congregation for her
preservation and safe return; and when this took
place, he issued further bills to the same
congregations to return thanks. Finding these peculiar
attentions did not produce the desired effect, he drew
up a long paper, which he called a Declaration of War,
in which he declared he should compass her surrender,
by 'shooting off great numbers of bullets from his
camp; namely, by earnest prayer to Heaven day and
night, that her mind might be enlightened and her
heart softened.' His grotesque courtship ended in
defeat: the lady never relented.
The precision and
concentration of thought required in his literary
labours, the compilation and several revisings of his
Concordance, his verbal index of Milton's works, his
Dictionary of the Holy Scriptures, his Account of the
History and Excellency of the Holy Scriptures, and his
daily employment on the journal in which the letters
of Junius appeared, as corrector of the press, render
Cruden's aberrations the more remarkable. And a still
more curious circumstance, consists in the fact that
his vagaries failed to efface the esteem in which he
was regarded by all who knew him, more especially by
his biographers, Blackburn and Chalmers; the latter of
whom said of him, that he was a man to whom the
religious world lies under great obligation, ' whose
character, notwithstanding his mental infirmities, we
cannot but venerate; whom neither infirmity nor
neglect could debase; who sought consolation where
only it could be found; whose sorrows served to
instruct him in the distresses of others; and who
employed his prosperity to relieve those who, in every
sense, were ready to perish.' Are there many men more
worthy of a column in the Book of Days?
EXPULSION
OF THE JEWS FROM ENGLAND
In the course of the year of
grace, 1290, three daughters of Edward I were
married. The old chroniclers relate wondrous stories
of the prodigal magnificence of those nuptials; nor
are their recitals without corroboration. Mr. Herbert,
a late librarian of the city of London, discovered in
the records of the Goldsmith's Company, the actual
list of valuables belonging to Queen Eleanor, and it
reads more like an extract from the Arabian Nights,
than an early English record. Gold chalices, worth
�292 each, an immense sum in those days, figure in it;
small silver cups are valued at �118 each�what were
the large ones worth, we wonder!�while diamonds,
sapphires, emeralds, and rubies, sparkle among all
kinds of gold and silver utensils. Modern historians
refer to the old chroniclers, and this astounding
catalogue of manufactured wealth, as a proof of the
attainments in refinement and art which England had
made at that early period. But there is a reverse to
every medal, and it is much more probable that these
records of valuables are silent witnesses to a great
crime�the robbery and expulsion of the Jews, proving
the general barbarity and want of civilisation that
then prevailed.
Not long before this year of
royal marriages, Edward, moaning on a sick-bed, made a
solemn vow, that if the Almighty should restore him to
health, he would undertake another crusade against the
infidels. The king recovered; but as the immediate
pressure of sickness was removed, and Palestine far
distant, he compromised his vow by driving the Jews
out of his French province of Guienne, and seizing the
wealth and possessions of the unfortunate Israelites.
It may be supposed, from the
wandering nature of the Jewish race, that many members
of it had been in England from a very early period;
but their first regular establishment in any number
dates from the Norman Conquest, William having
promised them his protection. The great master of
romance has, in Ivanhoe, given a general idea how the
Jews were treated; but there were particular horrors
perpetrated on a large scale, quite unfit for relation
in a popular work. In short, it may be said that when
the Jews were most favoured, their condition was to
our ideas intolerable; and yet it should be recorded
in favour of our ancestors, that even then the Jews
were rather more mildly treated in England than in the
other countries of Europe.
When Edward returned from
despoiling and banishing the Jews of Guiemie, his
subjects received him with rapturous congratulations.
The constant drain of the precious metals created by
the Crusades, the almost utter deficiency of a
currency for conducting the ordinary transactions of
life, had caused the whole nation�clergy, nobility,
gentry, and commoners�to become debtors to the Jews.
If the king, then, would graciously banish them from
England as he had from Guienne, his subjects' debts
would be sponged out, and he, of course, would be the
most glorious, popular, and best of monarchs.
Edward, however, did not see
the affair exactly in that light. Though, in case of
an enforced exodus, he would become entitled to the
Jewish possessions, yet his subjects would be greater
gainers by the complete abolition of their debts. In
fact, the king, besides his own part of the spoil,
claimed a share in that of his subjects, but after
considerable deliberation the matter was thus
arranged. The clergy agreed to give the king a tenth
of their chattels, and the laity a fifteenth of their
lands; and so the bargain was concluded to the
satisfaction and gain of all parties, save the
miserable beings whom it most concerned.
On the 31st of August 1290,
Edward issued a proclamation commanding all persons of
the Jewish race, under penalty of death, to leave
England before the 1st of November. As an act of
gracious condescension on the part of the king, the
Jews were permitted to take with them a small portion
of their movables, and as much money as would pay
their travelling expenses. Certain ports were
appointed as places of embarkation, and safe-conduct
passes to those ports were granted to all who chose to
pay for them. The passes added more to the royal
treasury than to the protection of the fugitives. The
people�that is to say, the Christians �rose and robbed
the Jews on all sides, without paying the slightest
respect to the dearly-purchased protections. All the
old historians relate a shocking instance of the
treatment the Jews received when leaving England.
Holinshed thus quaintly tells the story:
'A sort of the richest of them
being shipped with their treasure, in a mighty tall
ship which they had hired, when the same was under
sail, and got down the Thames, towards the mouth of
the I river, the master-mariner bethought him of a
wile, and caused his men to cast anchor, and so rode
at the same, till the ship, by ebbing of the stream,
remained on the dry sand. The master herewith enticed
the Jews to walk out with him on land, for recreation;
and at length, when he understood the tide to be
coming in, he got him back to the ship, whither he was
drawn up by a cord. The Jews made not so much haste as
he did, because they were not aware of the danger; but
when they perceived how the matter stood, they cried
to him for help, howbeit he told them that they ought
to cry rather unto Moses, by whose conduct their
fathers passed through the Red Sea; and, there-fore,
if they would call to him for help, he was able to
help them out of these raging floods, which now came
in upon them. They cried, indeed, but no succour
appeared, and so they were swallowed up in the water.
The master returned with his ship, and told the king
how he had used the matter, and had both thanks and
rewards, as some have written.'
Nearly all over the world this
cruel history is traditionally known among the Jews,
who add a myth to it; namely, that the Almighty, in
execration of the deed, has ever since caused a
continual turmoil among the waters over the fatal
spot. The disturbance in the water caused by the fall,
on ebb-tide, at old London Bridge, was said to be the
place; and when foreign Jews visited London, it was
always the first wonderful sight they were taken to
see. The water at the present bridge is now as
unruffled as at any other part of the river, yet Dr.
Margoliouth, writing in 1851, says that most of the
old Jews still believe in the legend regarding the
troubled waters.

Jew's House at Lincoln
|
There are few relics of the
Jews thus driven out of England. The rolls of their
estates, still among the public records, shew that the
king profited largely by their expulsion. Jewry, Jew's
Mount, Jew's Corner, and other similarly named
localities in some of our towns, denote their once
Hebrew occupants.
The Jew's House at Lincoln can be
undoubtedly traced to the possession of one Belaset, a
Jewess, who was hanged for clipping coin, a short time
previous to the expulsion. The house being forfeited
to the crown by the felony, the king gave it to
William de Foleteby, whose brother bequeathed it to
the Dean and Chapter of Lincoln, the present
possessors. Passing through so few hands, in the lapse
of so many years, its history can be easier traced,
perhaps, than any other of the few houses of the same
age in England. The head of the doorway of this
remarkable edifice, as will be seen by the
illustration, forms an arch to
carry the fireplace and chimney of the upper room.
There seems to have been no fireplace in the lower
room, there being originally but two rooms�one above,
the other below.
The number of banished Jews
comprised about 15,000 persons of all ages. English
commerce, then in its infancy, received a severe shock
by the impolitic measure; nor did learning escape
with-out loss. One of the expelled was Nicolaus de
Lyra, who, strange to say in those bigoted days, had
been admitted a student at Oxford. He subsequently
wrote a commentary on the Old and New Testaments, a
work that prepared the way for the Reformation. Both
Wickliffe and Luther acknowledged the assistance they
had received from it.
And though Pope, when
describing the Temple of Dulness, says:
'De Lyra there a dreadful
front extends,'
both parties, at the period of
the Reformation, agreed in saying:
'Si Lyra non lyrasset,
Lutherus non saltasset'
'If Lyra had not piped, Luther
would not have danced.'
From the expulsion down to the
period of the Commonwealth, the presence of a few Jews
was always tolerated in England, principally about the
court, in the capacity of physicians, or foreign
agents. Early in 1656, the wise and tolerant Protector
summoned a council to deliberate on the policy of
allowing Jews to settle once more in England. That all
parties might be represented, Cromwell admitted
several lawyers, clergymen, and merchants, to aid the
council in its deliberation. The lawyers declared that
there was no law to prevent Jews settling in England;
the clergy asserted that Christianity would be
endangered thereby; and the merchants alleged that
they would be the ruin of trade. Many of the arguments
employed on this discussion were again used in the
late debates on the admission of Jews into parliament.
The council sat four days without corning to any
conclusion: at last Cromwell closed it by saying, that
he had sent for them to consider a simple question,
and they had made it an intricate one. That he would,
therefore, be guided by Providence, and act on his own
responsibility. A few days afterwards, he announced to
his parliament that he had determined to allow Jews to
settle in England, and the affair was accomplished. In
May and June 1656, a number of Jews arrived in London,
and their first care was to build a synagogue, and lay
out a burial-ground. The first interment on their
burial-register is that of one Isaac Britto, in 1657.
THE
GREAT EARTHQUAKE AT LISBON IN 1755
One of the most awful
earthquakes ever recorded in history, for the loss of
life and property thereby occasioned, was that at
Lisbon on the 1st of November 1755. Although equalled,
perhaps, in the New World, it has had no parallel in
the Old. About nine o'clock in the morning, a hollow
thunder-like sound was heard in the city, although the
weather was clear and serene. Almost immediately
afterwards, without any other warning, such an
upheaval and overturning of the ground occurred as
destroyed the greater part of the houses, and buried
or crushed no less than 30,000 human beings. Some of
the survivors declared that the shock scarcely
exceeded three minutes in duration. Hundreds of
persons lay half-killed under stones and ruined walls,
shrieking in agony, and imploring aid which no one
could render. Many of the churches were at the time
filled with their congregations; and each church
became one huge catacomb, entombing the hapless beings
in its ruins. The first two or three shocks, in as
many minutes, destroyed the number of lives above
mentioned; but there were counted twenty-two shocks
altogether, in Lisbon and its neighbourhood,
destroying in the whole very nearly 60,000 lives. In
one house, 4 persons only survived out of 38. In the
city-prison, 800 were killed, and 1200 in the general
hospital.
The effects on the sea and the
sea-shore were scarcely less terrible than those
inland. The sea retired from the harbour, left the bar
dry, and then rolled in again as a wave fifty or sixty
feet high. Many of the inhabitants, at the first
alarm, rushed to a new marble quay which had lately
been constructed; but this proceeding only occasioned
additional calamities. The quay sank down into an
abyss which opened underneath it, drawing in along
with it numerous boats and small vessels. There must
have been some actual closing up of the abyss at this
spot; for the poor creatures thus engulfed, as well as
the timbers and other wreck, disappeared completely,
as if a cavern had closed in upon them.
The seaport of Setubal, twenty miles south of Lisbon, was
engulfed
and wholly disappeared. At Cadiz, the sea rose in a
wave to a height of sixty feet, and swept away great
part of the mole and fortifications. At Oporto, the
river continued to rise and fall violently for several
hours; and violent gusts of wind were actually forced
up through the water from chasms which opened and shut
in the bed beneath it. At Tetuan, Fez, Marocco, and
other places on the African side of the Mediterranean,
the earthquake was felt nearly at the same time as at
Lisbon. Near Marocco, the earth opened and swallowed
up a village or town with 8000 inhabitants, and then
closed again. The comparisons which scientific men
were afterwards able to institute, shewed that the
main centre of the disturbance was far out in the
Atlantic, where the bed of the ocean was convulsed by
up-and-down heavings, thereby creating enormous waves
on all sides. Many of the vessels out at sea were
affected as if they had struck suddenly on a sand-bank
or a rock; and, in some instances, the shock was so
violent as to overturn every person and everything on
board. And yet there was deep water all round the
ships.
Although the mid-ocean may
have been the 1 the flames continued for six days, and
the focus of one disturbance which made itself felt as
far as Africa in one direction, England in another,
and America in a third, Lisbon must unquestionably
have been the seat of a special and most terrible
movement, creating yawning gaps in various parts of
the city, and swallowing up buildings and people in
the way above described. Many mountains in the
neighbourhood, of considerable elevation, were shaken
to their foundations; some were rent from top to
bottom, enormous masses of rock were hurled from their
sides, and electric flashes issued from the fissures.
To add to the horrors of such of the inhabitants as
survived the shocks, the city was found to be on fire
in several places. These fires were attributed to
various causes�the domestic fires of the inhabitants
igniting the furniture and timbers that were hurled
promiscuously upon them; the large wax-tapers which on
that day (being a religious festival) were lighted in
the churches; and the incendiary mischief of a band of
miscreants, who took advantage of the terror around
them by setting fire to houses in order to sack and
pillage. The wretched inhabitants were either
paralysed with dismay, or were too much engaged in
seeking for the mangled corpses of their friends, to
attend to the fire; The flames continued for six days,
and the half-roasted bodies of hundreds of persons
added to the horrors.
Mr. Mallet, in his theory of
earthquakes (which traces them to a kind of earth-wave
propagated with great velocity), states that the
earthquake which nearly destroyed Lisbon was felt at
Loch Lomond in Scotland. ' The water, without any
apparent cause, rose against the banks of the loch,
and then subsided below its usual level: the greatest
height of the swell being two feet four inches. In
this instance, it seems most probable that the
amplitude of the earth-wave was so great, that the
entire cavity or basin of the lake was nearly at the
same instant tilted or canted up, first at one side
and then at the other, by the passage of the wave
beneath it, so as to disturb the level of the
contained waters by a few inches just as one would
cant up a bowl of water at one side by the hand.'
ALL-MALLOW-TIDE CUSTOMS AT THE
MIDDLE TEMPLE
In the reign of Charles I, the
young gentlemen of the Middle Temple were accustomed
at All-Hallow-Tide, which they considered the
beginning of Christmas, to associate themselves for
the festive objects connected with the season. In
1629, they chose Bulstrode Whitelocke as Master of the
Revels, and used to meet every evening at St.
Dunstan's Tavern, in a large new room, called 'The
Oracle of Apollo,' each man bringing friends with him
at his own pleasure. It was mind of mock parliament,
where various questions were discussed, as in our
modern debating societies; but these temperate
proceedings were seasoned with mirthful doings, to
which the name of Revels was given, and of which
dancing appears to have been the chief. On
All-Hallows-Day, ' the master [Whitelocke, then
four-and-twenty], as soon as the evening was come,
entered the hall, followed by sixteen revellers. They
were proper handsome young gentlemen, habited in rich
suits, shoes and stockings, hats and great feathers.
The master led them in his bar gown, with a white
staff in his hand, the music playing before them. They
began with the old masques; after which they danced
the Brawls, and then the master took his seat, while
the revellers flaunted through galliards, corantos,
French and country dances, till it grew very late.
As might be expected, the
reputation of this dancing soon brought a store of
other gentlemen and ladies, some of whom were of great
quality; and when the ball was over, the festive-party
adjourned to Sir Sydney Montague's chamber, lent for
the purpose to our young president. At length the
court-ladies and grandees were allured�to the
contentment of his vanity it may have been, but
entailing on him serious expense�and then there was
great striving for places to see them on the part of
the London citizens. . . . To crown the ambition and
vanity of all, a great German lord had a desire to
witness the revels, then making such a sensation at
court, and the Templars entertained him at great cost
to themselves, receiving in exchange that which cost
the great noble very little�his avowal that " dere was
no such nople gollege in Ghristendom as deirs."'�Memoirs
of Bulstrode Whitelocke, by R. H. Whitelocke, 1860, p.
56.