Notes and Queries, Number 37, July 13, 1850 | Page 4

up in this almonry under the patronage of _Esteney_, Abbot of Westminster, by William Caxton, citizen and mercer (d. 1483)."
Esteney succeeded Milling in the Abbacy of Westminster, but the latter did not die before 1492. On p. 520. of his second volume, Mr. Cunninghan gives the date of Caxton's death correctly, i.e. 1491.
EDWARD F. RIMBAULT.
* * * * *
SANATORY LAWS IN OTHER DAYS.
In that curious medley commonly designated, after Hearne, _Arnold's Chronicle_, and which was probably first printed in 1502 or 1503, we find the following passages. I make "notes" of them, from their peculiar interest at the moment when sanatory bills, having the same objects, are occupying the public attention so strongly; especially in respect to the Smithfield Nuisance and the Clergy Discipline bill.
1. In a paper entitled "The articles dishired bi y'e comonse of the cety of London, for reformacyo of thingis to the same, of the Mayer, Aldirmen, and Comon Counsell, to be enacted," we have the following:--
"Also that in anoyding the corupte savours and lothsom innoyaunc (caused by slaughter of best) w'tin the cyte, wherby moche people is corupte and infecte, it may plese my Lord Mayr, Aldirmen, and Comen Counsaile, to put in execucion a certaine acte of parlement, by whiche it is ordeigned y't no such slaughter of best shuld be vsed or had within this cite, and that suche penaltees be leuyed vpo the contrary doers as in the said acte of parlement ben expressed.
"Also in anoyding of lyke annoyauce. Plese it my Lord Mair, Alderme, and Como Councell, to enact that noo manor pulter or any other persone i this cytee kepe from hinsforth, within his hous, swans, gies, or dowk, upon a peyn therfore to be ordeigned."--pp. 83, 84, 3d. ed.
I believe that one item of "folk-faith" is that "farm-yard odours are healthy." I have often {100} heard it affirmed at least; and, indeed, has not the common councilman, whom the Times has happily designated as the "defender of filth", totally and publicly staked his reputation on the dogma in its most extravagant shape, within the last few months? It is clear that nearly four centuries ago, the citizens of London thought differently; even though "the corupte savours and lothsom innoyaunc" were infinitely less loathsome than in the present Smithfield and the City slaughter-houses.
It would be interesting to know to what act of parliament Arnold's citizens refer, and whether it has ever been repealed. It is curious to notice, too, that the danger from infuriated beasts running wild through the streets is not amongst the evils of the system represented. They go further, however, and forbid even the killing within the city.
Moreover, it would really seem that the swan was not then a mere ornamental bird, either alive or dead, but an ordinary article of citizen-dinners, it being classed with "gies and dowks" in the business of the poulterer. At the same time, no mention being made of swine in any of these ordonnances or petitions, would at first sight seem to show that the flesh of the hog was in abhorrence with the Catholic citizen, as much perhaps as with the Jews themselves; at any rate, that it was not a vendible article of food in those days. When did it become so? This conclusion would, however, be erroneous; for amongst "the articles of the good governa?ce of the cite of London" shortly following we have this:--
"Also yf ony persone kepe or norrysh hoggis, oxen, kyen, or mallardis within the ward, in noyoying of ther neyhbours."--p. 91.
The proper or appointed place for keeping hoggis was Hoggistone, now Hoxton; as Houndsditch[2] was for the hounds.
There is another among these petitions to the Lord Mayor and corporation, worthy of notice, in connection with sanatory law.
"Also in avoyd?g ye abhomynable savours causid by ye kep?g of ye kenell in ye mote and ye diches there, and ? especiall by sethig of ye houndes mete wt roten bones, and vnclenly keping of ye ho?des, wherof moche people is anoyed, soo yt when the wynde is in any poyte of the northe, all the fowle stynke is blowen ouer the citee. Plese it mi Lord Mair, Aldirmen, and Comen Co?cell, to ordeigne that the sayd kenell be amoued and sett in s? other c?uenient place where as best shall seme them. And also that the said diches mai be clensed from yere to yere, and so kepte yt thereof folowe non annoyaunce."--p. 87.
Of course "Houndsditch" is here meant; but for what purpose were the hounds kept? And, indeed, what kind of hounds were they, that thus formed a part of the City establishment? Were they bloodhounds for tracking criminals, or hounds kept for the special behoof and pleasure of the "Lord Mair, Aldermen, and Comen Co?sel?" The Houndsditch of that time bore a strong resemblance