fort and oppression is almost always connected with the idea of something unusual and exceptional. Usages and regulations which apply with even operation to a whole class are seldom felt as oppressive by individuals within it, unless they are made the badge of servitude or inferiority with respect to another class. It is the individual and distinctive oppression which forces itself upon the mind and weighs down the spirit; and there is scarcely any amount of tyrannical restriction to which a man will not even now cheerfully submit when it comes to him embodied in that most imperative unwritten code, the "laws of society." In the days of the Plantagenets, the limitations on individual liberty were made the subject of specific written regulations, and (at variance and inconsistent as they are in so many respects with our own habits) they convey to our minds at first sight a strong impression of a painful suppression of the individual will. But if it were in the power of a citizen of old London to reduce to writing in a systematic form the actual concessions which are made every day by ourselves to the arbitrary unwritten laws of the society in which we move,—the restrictions as to time, locality, dress, demeanour, to which we all submit in obedience to the usages which fashion and public opinion impose on us all equally, would not the citizens of the days of the Plantagenets, when they perused these, by them, unheard-of prescriptions, in their turn exclaim in horror at the gloomy days that were to follow, and thank Heaven that they themselves lived in the enlightened thirteenth or fourteenth century? Are there now no privileges of the "great men of the land" as indefensible on paper as the right of "preemption" of delicacies, and yet as little felt to be oppressive by the generality, since in both cases they are consonant with the feelings of the age? And when it is remembered that this regulative system was imposed in each case with the avowed object of removing or mitigating some acknowledged and widelyfelt evils, it need not surprise us to find that it was tolerated, if not welcomed, by those who had no other alternative presented to them.

It is not from Fitz-Stephen's account that we can gather any idea of how the old Londoners were lodged, clothed, and disciplined. This he evidently passed over as trivial and too familiar to the every-day experience of his readers to merit special notice. Fortunately the comparatively dull municipal records supply in some measure this want. In the reign of Stephen the great majority of the London houses were wholly built of wood, and thatched with straw, reeds, or stubble. The reader will understand, therefore, the full significance of the plague of frequent fires mentioned by Fitz-Stephen. A great

conflagration in Stephen's reign, which began at London Bridge, destroyed St. Paul's Cathedral, and burnt all the houses as far as St. Clement Dane's. After this the wealthier citizens rebuilt their houses with partition-walls of freestone, and covered the roofs with thick tiles. In most instances, however, the partitions between the houses still probably continued to be made of wood until the "assize of Fitz-Alwin" in the year 1189, and the roofs to be constructed of thatch to even a later period. This "code of ordinances" of Fitz-Alwin, framed for the express purpose of preventing great fires for the future, is still preserved, and from it we gather many curious particulars as to London houses of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries; for it continued in force down to the reign of Richard II. The houses, presenting a line of picturesque gables towards the street, in the time of Fitz-Alwin's assize consisted of but one story over the ground-floor. But by the early part of the fourteenth century we find houses mentioned of two or three stories, each of which, together with the cellar beneath, sometimes were the freehold of different individuals, giving rise to much dispute as to the matter of repairs. The upper story in such houses as these last was probably entered by stairs on the outside. "Stalls," though not mentioned in the assize, had become common in the latter part of the next century. They were projections from the gable facing the street, and were used to expose various articles for sale. They were to be no more than two and a half feet in depth, movable and flexible, and as the alderman of the ward might think fit, considering the width of the street. The pentices or penthouses were stalls of a larger size. Windows are mentioned in the assize; but these were only apertures open to the air, and probably closed with shutters at night. Glass was then a luxury of the very wealthy; but by the time of Edward III. it had come into general use sufficiently to constitute the glaziers into an established mystery. The same was the case with chimneys. In Fitz-Alwin's time the smoke found its way, as it best might, out of the doors and windows of the middle and lower orders; but by the year 1300 chimneys were in pretty common use. Charcoal is frequently mentioned; sea-coal was commonly used as early at least as the reign of Edward II. Bricks are not mentioned, but tiles were probably used in their stead. Every householder was bound to pave the footway before his own residence, and was to do so evenly with his neighbour's paving. The middle of the street was paved by a pavage rate. To prevent the roads from being cut up, the wheels of the carts were not allowed to be cased with iron; and in the time of Edward I. and Edward II. "no cart was allowed to stand any

where in the City with fire-wood, timber, or charcoal on sale except at Cornhill." With due considerateness also for the safety of the public, it was provided that all carts, when unloaded, were to be driven no faster through the City than when laden. The "scavagers" had allotted to them the duty of seeing that all nuisances were removed, and the pavements kept in proper repair. "In some parts of the City large open spaces were paved for the purpose of holding markets." The stalls in some of these markets were used by the fishmongers on fish-days, and the butchers on flesh-days. The City was supplied with water from the City conduit at the east end of Cheapside, and from the Thames, from which it was conveyed in carts at a fixed rate.

Besides the private houses, there were those belonging to the "Hostelers" and "Herbergeours," the distinction between whom Mr. Riley conjectures to be, that the former lodged and fed not only their guests but their horses also. Keepers of wine-taverns and ale-taverns, victuallers (sellers of provisions), and, as we have seen, the public cooks, were not allowed to lodge guests, though the last named seem to have frequently violated the prohibition. The privilege of keeping these places was generally confined to freemen; but in the reign of Edward III. non-freemen are mentioned under the title of common hostelers. In our eyes it may seem a great hardship that the hostelers were made responsible for the conduct of their guests if they lodged with them more than a day and night; but as it was a remnant of the old Saxon frank-pledge which was once general throughout the country, it is most probable that the course of time had introduced some common-sense understanding on the subject, which modified essentially the amount of surveillance which it would otherwise seem to entail. The hostelers were at one time empowered to take away any arms which their guests brought with them, and to keep them till their departure, though afterwards, it would seem, they were only required to warn their guests against carrying arms at night, and against being out of doors at a late hour. The charge for a night's lodging in the time of Henry IV. seems to have been a penny per night. Just as victuallers and cooks were prohibited from letting lodgings, so hostelers were forbidden to sell drink and victuals to any but their guests. Nor were they allowed to make ale or bread themselves. For the latter they were enjoined to resort to the baker, and for the former to the "ale-wives." The ale-taverns were distinct from the wine-taverns, and were generally, if not always, brewhouses as well; this double business of making and selling the ale being almost entirely in the hands of females, and held

in low estimation. So late as the close of the fifteenth century "Fleet-street was tenanted almost wholly by breweresses' ('braceresses') or ale-wives, and makers of felt caps." Every possible precaution was taken to insure that the public should not pay too high a price for inferior ale. As soon as the ale was brewed, it was the duty of the breweress to send for the ale-conner of the ward, who tasted the beverage, and fixed the maximum price. It is probable that the ale-wives merited the low estimation in which they were held; for we trace their delinquencies on this point by a string of penalties-fine, imprisonment, and the pillory. All the ale-measures had to be authorised by the seal of the alderman of the ward: they were all probably of wood. The customers out of doors sent their vessel to the brewery, "and, by public enactment, there it was to stand the rest of the day and through the night, for the purpose of giving the ale time to work" (espurger),—another proof of its newness when consumed. The next morning, on being taken away by the customer, the vessel was to be "full of good and clear ale." No breweress, or other retailer of ale, was to keep her doors open after curfew, under heavy penalties. Hucksters, and cooks, and pie-bakers, were also sometimes allowed to retail ale to their customers in small quantities. There is another very significant regulation: "Brewers, as well as hostelers, were ordered to retail their ale by full and lawful measure, and not to sell it by the 'hanap' or metal drinkingmug of the establishment." The brewers were not allowed to abandon or lessen the amount of their brewing in consequence of any particular ordinance. "If any man or woman shall decline to brew, or shall brew in less quantity than he or she used to brew, in consequence of this ordinance, let such per-son be held to be a withdrawer of victuals from the City; and for such disobedience and malice let him or her incur the penalty of imprisonment, according to the will of the mayor for the time being; and, nevertheless, let the said person forswear for ever the said trade within the liberties of the City."

The wine-taverners were looked after closely in a similar manner. They also had to close at curfew. Unsound wine was not allowed to be mixed with good; and after the arrival of new wine at a tavern, none of it was to be sold before the old was disposed of. Mr. Riley infers from this that new wine was then preferred to old; but the regulation in question is capable of another interpretation, less injurious to the good taste of the customers, and more so to the good faith of the taverner. There is no mention of wine bottles or flasks. The wine is to be sold in sealed measures only (as with ale), and not by the cruskyn-the name of the small earthenware wine

cup which, as Mr. Riley notes, still survives in the "cruskeenlawn," from which the Irish peasant quaffs his potteen. Sweet wines were not allowed to be sold by the same persons as other wines, nor to be kept in the same cellar. No wine was to be sold till it had been duly gauged; and in the reign of Edward III. four vintners were chosen yearly to assess the fines. Each wine-tavern had its pole, limited in length to seven feet, so as not to interfere with the horsemen on the road-way, "projecting from the gable of the house, and supporting a sign or a bunch of leaves at the end." This gave rise to the old proverb, "Good wine needs no bush,"-and to the "Bush" taverns and inns which we still meet with.

The first impulse of the mob in riotous times is notoriously hostile to the bakers, and popular prejudice assigns to that trade a very low position in the scale of morality. It is not to be supposed, then, that they escaped the notice of the Draconic legislators of old London. Bread was made partly within the walls (and sometimes this was the only lawful bread for citizens), or at other localities, such as Stratford in Essex; Bremble, near Stratford,-"the present Bromley, no doubt, which still has its corn-mills,"-Stephenhithe (now Stepney), and St. Albans, from which places it was brought on horses or in carts. This latter "strange" bread, as it was called, seems to have been prohibited or stigmatised as "spurious,"-less from any desire to secure a monopoly to the bakers of the City than from the more praiseworthy reason, as expressly alleged in the case of Southwark, that "the bakers of Southwark are not amenable to the justice of the City," which undertook the care of its citizens' digestion. By public enactment, in the time of Edward I. loaves were to be made at two and four to the penny. In "a pen-and-ink sketch in the Assisa Panis, in the Record-room at Guildhall (date about 1320), a baker is represented as being drawn on a hurdle with a deficient loaf, of a circular form, hanging from his neck." It was formerly forbidden that any loaves should be sold at a higher price than the above; but higher-priced loaves, three or five farthings a-piece, were nevertheless "smuggled into the market, under the arms,' or else beneath' a towel." Every loaf had to be impressed with a certain seal, which was inspected from time to time by the alderman of the ward, who kept a counterpart of the impress. The servants of the rich had a right to be present when the baker kneaded his dough; and supervision. seems to have been needful, for we find that knavish bakers were accustomed to make bread of fine quality on the outside and coarse within. One baker even is mentioned as being pilloried for putting a piece of iron in his bread to increase the weight.