Bocharti, cognatos decuit") were honourably provided for in our church.

This inscription always reminds me of a passage in Nichols's "Defence of the Church of England," where he says, "If it were not for the Cathedral preferments, we should have nothing in the church to confer upon foreigners, for they scarce ever attain to such a mastery in our language as to be fit for preaching and other duties of parochial cures. But several of them have found an honourable refuge in our Cathedrals, when they have left their own country for the love of our church, or been forced from it by the severity of their Prince. In these spheres have shone those renowned ornaments of learning, the Saravias, the Casaubons, the Du Moulins; and, to name one for all, the glory of his own and our nation too, D. Peter Allix."

Now-a-days, indeed, there is little need or occasion for such disposal of these pieces of preferment. Let it not, however, be forgotten, that among our countrymen down to the present day, it is hard to name one really eminent in theological attainments, who has not enjoyed some cathedral dignity. And if these things are not on all occasions so well bestowed as they might be, it should be remembered that no system can be perfect; and that, even in cases where no peculiar claims are to be found on the part of the individuals thus preferred, benefit may yet accrue to the church from the rank thus afforded to her ministers; for it is an important feature in our establishment, that, by the inequality of its preferment, it not only serves to encourage learning and active exertion on the part of its ministers, but sets them on a level with every class of society, even up to the highest, and thus qualifies them to exercise a salutary influence, both in public and private, on the whole community.

In the list of Rectors of this parish, nine were Prebendaries of Canterbury; and of these, one (Dr. Bargrave) became Dean, and two were raised to the episcopal bench-namely, Martyn Fotherbye to the See of Salisbury, and Samuel Parker to that of Oxford. Besides these, we had Henry Wharton, the chaplain to Archbishop Sancroft, and the laborious coadjutor of Cave in his " Historia Literaria." He held this living, with Minster, in the Isle of Thanet, but for a short time. He died 5th March, 1694, in the 31st year of his age, and was buried in Westminster Abbey.*

The Registers commence in 1558; but do not contain any thing worthy of notice.

The Font is plain, and placed at the west end of the nave. In the gallery above is an organ, the gift of the late Rector, the Rev. Sir John Fagg, Bart., in 1813.

In the parish is Horton Chapel, now desecrated, and used as a hop-oast; but formerly (according to Hasted) enjoying all the privileges of the mother church except burial. I find notice of a baptism there in the Register in 1577; and I think there have also been inter

Let me here refer the reader to the very interesting Diary and Life of Henry Wharton, in the Appendix to Dr. D'Oyly's Life of Archbishop Sancroft.

ments there. The farm to which it belongs is subject to an ancient modus of 67. 13s. 4d. in lieu of tithes.

Before I conclude, I will just mention a house about half a mile from the church, called the Deanery, formerly a residence of the priors, and afterwards of the Deans of Canterbury, now held under the Chapter. Its chapel, it is said, was pulled down in 1572; and there are now few traces of antiquity left in the building.

NOTICES OF PAST TIMES FROM LAW BOOKS.

To the Editor of the British Magazine.

SIR,-I trust no apology is necessary for troubling you with the following communication; although its general character may be chiefly light and amusing, it may, however, be remembered, that it also contains some information of times and manners now gone by, and that such information is taken from sources, if not inaccessible, at least most uninviting to general readers, namely, some of our old law reports, which are perhaps among the very last books to which a general reader would resort for amusement.

The introduction of the use of glass in the windows of houses in this country took place, at least partially, at an early period: this the climate would lead us to presume, even if we had not, as we have, better evidence. It is singular, however, to how late a period glass was considered in the light of furniture, and to be moveable-in other words, as a luxury, not necessary either to the occupation or preservation of the house. In Brooke's Abridgement, title Chattelles, it appears that in the 21 Hen. VII., A.D. 1505, it was held, that though the windows belonged to the heir, the glass was the property of the executors, and might therefore of course be removed by them, 'quar le meason est perfite sauns le glasse,' a doctrine and a reason which would much astonish a modern heir. As may be supposed, the advances of society in civilization did not leave such a doctrine unshaken, but nearly a century elapsed ere it was overturned. Lord Coke mentions, in the fourth part of his Reports, page 63 b, that in the 41 and 42 Elizabeth, A.D. 1599, it was in the Common Pleas "resolved per totam curiam, that glass annexed to windows by nails, or in any other manner, could not be removed, for without glass it is no perfect house," and that the heir should have it, and not the executors. This is one of many instances in which the manners and habits of society have caused a silent alteration in the laws of the country; by the term silent, I mean without the assistance of a legislative enactment. The cost, however, of glass for the windows was then (temp. Eliz.) no light one, for it is well known, that at the period of which we are now speaking, most houses were built with a great number of very large windows, many of them filled with stained glass: I need hardly quote from Lord Bacon (who, in his Essay on Building, recommends "fine coloured windows of several works,") the complaint that " you shall have sometimes fair houses so full of glass, that one cannot tell where

to become to be out of the sun or cold." Accordingly, in the case before quoted from Lord Coke, he observes, "peradventure great part of the costs of the house consists of glass, which, if they be open to tempests and rain, waste and putrefaction of the timber of the house would follow." In justification, however, of the doctrine held in 1505, it is to be remarked, that very frequently the glass of windows was not then fixed as now, but consisted chiefly of a series of moveable casements, easily taken out: this is no where more apparent than in the hall of the Archbishop's palace at Mayfield, in Sussex. From the Northumberland household book, we know that in the reign of Elizabeth, when the Earls of Northumberland left Alnwick Castle the glass was taken out of the windows and laid by-a process by which as much would have been broken as saved, had the glass been fixed in the present mode. The increasing practice of annexing it to the windows by nails, might be an additional reason for the heir to prosecute his claim.

Although not immediately connected with this subject, I will give, from Lord Coke, an extract relating to wainscot. "It was likewise then (41 and 42 Eliz.) resolved, that wainscot is parcel of the house, and there is no difference in law, if it be fastened by great nails or little nails, or by screws, or irons put through the posts or walls, as have been invented of late time."

What now follows, consists of some extracts from an amusing argument of Mr. Justice Hyde, in the case of Manby v. Scott, decided in the Exchequer Chamber, in 1663, and reported in the first volume of Modern Reports. The question was as to the liability of a husband to pay for goods furnished, contrary to his express prohibition, to his wife, who, against his consent, had separated from him. The amount of the demand in dispute was 407. It may be well to mention that the Court of Exchequer Chamber is a court of appeal from the King's Bench, and consists of the Judges of the Common Pleas and the Barons of the Exchequer.

"This case," says the Judge, "is the meanest that ever received resolution in this place; but as the same is now handled, it is of as great consequence to all the king's people of this realm, as any case can be. I will deliver my opinion plainly and freely, according as I conceive the law to be, without favouring the one or courting the other sex. If the contract or bargain of the wife, made without the allowance or consent of the husband, shall bind him upon pretence of necessary apparel, it will be in the power of the wife (who, by the law of God and of the land, is put under the power of the husband, and is bound to live in subjection unto him,) to rule over her husband, and undo him, maugre his head, and it shall not be in the power of the husband to prevent it. The wife shall be her own carver and judge of the fitness of her apparel, of the time when it is necessary for her to have new clothes, and as often as she pleaseth, without asking the advice or allowance of her husband and is such power suitable to the judgment of Almighty God, inflicted upon woman for being first in the transgression? Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shali rule over thee.' Will wives depend on the kindness and

favours of their husbands, or be observant towards them as they ought
to be, if such a power be put into their hands? Admit that in truth
the wife wants necessary apparel, woollen and linen, and thereupon
she goes into Paternoster-row, to a mercer, and takes up stuff, and
makes a contract for necessary clothes; thence goes into Cheapside,
and takes up linen there in like manner; and also goes into a third
street, and fits herself with ribbons, and other necessaries suitable to
her occasions and her husband's degree. This done, she goes away,
disposes of the commodities to furnish herself with money to go
abroad to Hyde Park, to score at gleeke,* or the like. Next morning
this good woman goes abroad into some other part of London, makes
her necessity and want of apparel known, and takes more wares upon
trust, as she had done the day before; after the same manner she goes
to a third and fourth place, and makes new contracts for fresh wares,
none of these tradesmen knowing or imagining she was formerly fur-
nished by the other, and each of them seeing and believing her to
have great need of the commodities sold her;-shall not the husband
be chargeable and liable to pay every one of these, if the contracts of
the wife doth bind him? Certainly, every one of these hath as just
cause to sue the husband as the other, and he is as liable to the action
of the last as the first or second, if the wife's contract shall bind him;
and where this will end, no man can divine or foresee. The wife, in
our case, departed from her husband against his will; she ought to be
a penitentiary before he is bound to receive her or give her any main-
tenance, and no such thing appears or is found in the verdict in our
case. It is said by my brother Twisden,† Although the wife depart
from her husband, yet she continues his wife, and she ought not to
starve.' If a woman be of so haughty a stomach, that she will
choose to starve rather than submit and be reconciled to her husband,
let her take her own choice: the law is in no default, which doth not
provide for such a wife. If a man be taken in execution, and lie in
prison for debt, neither the plaintiff at whose suit he is arrested, nor
the sheriff who took him, is bound to find him meat, drink, or clothes;
but he must live on his own, or on the charity of others: and if no
man will relieve him, let him die, in the name of God, says the law,
and so say I.
If a woman, who can have no goods of her own to
live on, will depart from her husband against his will, and will not
submit herself to him, let her live on charity, or starve, in the name
of God; for in such case the law says, her evil demeanour has
brought it upon herself, and her death ought to be imputed to her own
wilfulness. It is objected, that the jury is to judge what is fit for the
wife's degree, and that they are trusted with the reasonableness of the
price, and are to examine the value, and also the necessity of the
things or apparel. Alas, poor man! What a judicature is set up
here to decide the private difference between husband and wife? The
wife will have a velvet gown and a satin petticoat, and the husband

A game at cards.

+ There was a difference of opinion among the judges, but the majority agreed with Mr. Justice Hyde, and the case was decided accordingly.

thinks mohair or farendon for a gown, and watered tabby for a petticoat, is as fashionable, and fitter for his quality. The husband says that a plain lawn gorgett of ten shillings pleaseth him, and suits best with his condition: the wife will have a Flander lace, or point handkerchief of forty pounds, and takes it up at the Exchange. A jury of mercers, silkmen, sempsters, and exchange-men, are very excellent and very indifferent judges to decide this controversy: it is not for their avail and support to be against the wife, that they may put off their braided wares to the wife upon trust, at their own price, and then sue the husband for the money. Are not a jury of drapers and milliners bound to favour the mercers or exchange-men to-day, that they may do the like for them to-morrow? I wish, with all my heart, that the women of this age would learn to obey their husbands; so will they want for nothing that is fit, and these kind of flesh-flies shall not suck up or devour their husband's estates by illegal tricks."

If the learned judge was married, it is, I think, evident who was the "better horse" at home; for he speaks feelingly on the subject, and apparently from experience. He was, I believe, a cousin of Lord Clarendon, and there is, if I mistake not, a monument to him in the south transept of Salisbury Cathedral.

Your obedient Servant,

X.

EXTRACTS FROM CHURCHWARDEN'S ACCOUNTS.

(Continued from p. 418.)

1587. Pa to the Ringers for Joye the traytors weare taken 00 00 06."-i.e. in Babington's conspiracy.

"P to the ringers when the Queene of scotts was proclaymed traytor 00 00 08."

Pa to ye ringers the 9 of february for Joye of y execution of ye Queene of scotts 00 01 00.”

1588. "Paide for durance for a curtayne 00 02 00.”

"Item p for new articles because the myse had eaten up the other in the cubberd in the vestrye 00 00 04."

1590. "Item paide to a Carpenter for the making of a penthouse in the Churchyarde to keepe the Coffines drye 00 11 10."

1592. "Itm paide for a booke of orders concning the plague 00 00 04." In this parish, one of the smallest in London, there died of the Plague, from 29 Sept., 1592, to 29 Sept., 1593, no fewer than 87 persons.

"Itm paide for Thre new bearing Coffyns one bigger than ye other 00 12 00."

1597. "Itm paid for the stocks before the Church 000 16 10" "Paide to Doctor Stanhopes man for our appearances before him aboute our Parchement Booke for Christenings weddings & burialles & to testele that our Communycants doe receive the Communyon

* A kind of stuff; what farendon is, I know not.

VOL. III-June, 1833

+ Dress for the neck.

4 N