FEASTS AMONG THE ANCIENTS OF VARIOUS NATIONS.--All nations, whether savage or civilized, have regarded the pleasures of the table as the occasion of the most agreeable society. This species of enjoyment (abstracted from its susceptibility of abuse) makes but one family of all that it brings together. It levels the distinctions introduced by policy or prejudice, and disposes men to regard one another as brethren. Here people feel the equality established by nature; here they forget the evils of life; extinguish their animosities, and drop their enmities. For this reason Aristotle considers as a breach of the social principle, that custom of the Egyptians of eating apart, and praises the convivial repasts established by Minos and Lycurgus.

We learn from Herodotus, that the ancients had neither cups nor bowls at their feasts, but that they drank out of little horns tipt with silver or gold. The Greeks and Romans kept a domestic, for the purpose of reading during their meals and feasts. Sometimes the chief of the family himself performed the office of reader; and history informs us, that the Emperor Severus often read while his family ate. The time of reading was generally at supper; and guests were invited to a reading as they are now-a-days to play at cards.

The Greeks, in their flourishing times, did not profane, (according to their own expression) the holiness of the table, but rather adorned it with ingenious and elegant conversation: they proposed moral topics, of which Plutarch has preserved a collection. Heroes rarely a.s.sembled convivially, without bringing affairs of consequence into discourse, or deliberating upon those that regarded either present events or future contingencies. The Scythians, while at meat, used to make the strings of their bows resound, lest their warlike virtues might be enfeebled or lost in the season of pleasure. People of rank among the Rhodians, by a fundamental law of the state, were obliged to dine daily with those who had the management of affairs, in order to deliberate with them concerning such things as were necessary or useful for the country; and on this account the princ.i.p.al ministers of the kingdom were obliged to keep open table for all who could be of use to the state. The Persians also generally deliberated on business at table, but never determined, or put their determinations in execution, except in the morning before eating.

Among the Romans, the place where they supped was generally the vestibule, that a more retired part of the house might not encourage licentiousness and disorder. There were several laws that restricted their meals to these vestibules. When luxury reigned in Rome, they had superb halls for their entertainments. Lucullus had many, each of which bore the name of some deity; and this name was a mark which indicated to the servants the expense of the entertainment. The expense of a supper in Lucullus's hall of Apollo, amounted to fifty thousand drachmas. Singers, dancers, musicians, stage-players, jesters, and buffoons, were brought into these halls to amuse the guests.

Plutarch informs us, that Caesar, after his triumphs, treated the Roman people at twenty-two thousand tables; and by calculation it would seem, that there were at these tables upwards of two hundred thousand persons.

The hall in which Nero feasted, by the circular motion of its walls and ceiling, imitated the revolutions of the heavens, and represented the different seasons of the year, changing at every course, and showering down flowers and perfumes on the guests. The Romans did not, as we do, use but one table at their feasts; they had generally two: the first was for the service of animal food, which was afterwards removed, and another introduced with fruits; at this last they sung, and poured out their libations. The Greeks and eastern nations had the same custom, and even the Jews in their solemn feasts, and at sacrifices. The Romans, in the time of Nero, had tables made of citron-wood brought from Mauritania; they were varnished with purple and gold. Dion Ca.s.sius affirms, that Seneca had five hundred of these, which he made use of one after another; and Tertullian tells us, that Cicero had but one. The Romans chose the king of the feast by a throw of the dice. At the conclusion of the feast they drank out of a large cup, as often as there were letters in the names of their mistresses.

Feasting seems to have been the chief delight of the Britons, Germans, Gauls, and all the other Celtic nations; in which they indulged themselves to the utmost, as often as they had opportunity. "Among these nations (says M. Pellontier, in his _Hist. Celt._ lib. ii. c. 12. p. 463.) there is no public a.s.sembly, either for civil or religious purposes, duly held; no birth-day, marriage, or funeral, properly celebrated; no treaty of peace or alliance rightly cemented,--without a great feast." When the Germans, says Tacitus, wanted to reconcile enemies, to make alliances, to name chiefs, or to treat of war and peace, it was during the repast that they took counsel; a time in which the mind is most open to the impressions of simple truths, or most easily animated to great attempts.

These artless people, during the conviviality of the feast, spoke without disguise. Next day they weighed the counsels of the former evening: they deliberated at a time when they were not disposed to feign, and took their resolution when they were least liable to be deceived. It was by frequent entertainments of this kind, that the great men or chieftains gained the affections and rewarded the services of their followers; and those who made the greatest feasts were sure to be most popular, and to have the greatest retinue. These feasts, in which plenty was more regarded than elegance, lasted commonly several days, and the guests seldom retired until they had consumed all the provisions and exhausted all the liquors.

Athenaeus describes an entertainment that was given by Arcamnes, a very wealthy prince of Gaul, which continued a whole year without interruption, and at which all the people of Gaul, and even all strangers who pa.s.sed through that country, were made welcome. At these feasts they sometimes consulted about the most important affairs of state, and formed resolutions relating to peace and war; imagining that men spoke their real sentiments with the greatest freedom, and were apt to form the boldest designs, when their spirits were exhilarated with the pleasures of the table. The conversation at these entertainments very frequently turned on the great exploits, which the guests themselves, or their ancestors, had performed in war; which sometimes occasioned quarrels, and even bloodshed.

It was at a feast that the two ill.u.s.trious British princes, Carbar and Oscar, quarrelled about their own bravery and that of their ancestors, and fell by mutual wounds.--_Ossian_, vol. ii. p. 8, &c.

As to the drink used at those feasts, particularly in Britain, it seems probable, that before the introduction of agriculture into the island, mead, or honey diluted with water, was the only strong liquor known to its inhabitants, as it was to many other ancient nations in the same circ.u.mstances. This continued to be a favourite beverage among the ancient Britons and their posterity, long after they had become acquainted with other liquors, (See _Mead_.) After the introduction of agriculture, ale or beer became the most general drink of all the British nations who practised that art, as it had long been of all the Celtic people on the continent, (See _Ale_.) If the Phoenicians or Greeks imported any wine into Britain, it was only in very small quant.i.ties; that liquor being very little known in this island before it was conquered by the Romans. The drinking vessels of the Gauls, Britons, and other Celtic nations, were for the most part made of the horns of oxen and other animals; but those of the Caledonians consisted of large sh.e.l.ls, which are still used by some of their posterity in the Highlands of Scotland.

The dishes in which the meat was served up were either of wood or earthenware, or a kind of baskets made of osiers. These last were most used by the Britons, as they very much excelled in the art of making them, both for their own use and for exportation. The guests sat in a circle upon the ground, with a little hay, gra.s.s, or the skin of some animal, under them. A low table or stool was set before each person, with the portion of meat allotted to him upon it. In this distribution, they never neglected to set the largest and best pieces before those who were most distinguished for their rank, their exploits, or their riches. Every guest took the meat set before him in his hands, and, tearing it with his teeth, fed upon it in the best manner he could. If any one found difficulty in separating any part of his meat with his hands and teeth, he made use of a large knife, that lay in a particular place for the benefit of the whole company. Servants, or young boys and girls, the children of the family, stood behind the guests, ready to help them to drink, or any thing they wanted.

As the ancient Britons greatly excelled, and very much delighted in, music, all their feasts were accompanied with the joys of song, and the music of harps. In the words of Ossian, (vol. ii. p. 9, &c.) "whenever the feast of sh.e.l.ls is prepared, the songs of bards arise. The voice of sprightly mirth is heard. The trembling harps of joy are strung. They sing the battles of heroes, or the heaving b.r.e.a.s.t.s of love." Some of the poems of that ill.u.s.trious British bard appear to have been composed in order to be sung by the hundred bards of Fingal, at the feasts of Selma, (see vol.

i. p. 87, 209.) Many of the songs of the bards, which were sung and played at the feasts of the ancient Britons, were of a grave and solemn strain, celebrating the brave actions of the guests, or of the heroes of other times; but these were sometimes intermixed with sprightly and cheerful airs, to which the youth of both s.e.xes danced. It has been observed by some authors, that no nation comes near the English in the magnificence of their feasts. Those made at our coronations, instalments, consecrations, &c. transcend the belief of foreigners; and yet it is doubted whether those now in use are comparable to the feasts of former ages.

William the Conqueror, after he was peaceably settled on the throne of England, sent agents into different countries, to collect the most admired and rare dishes for his table; by which means, says John of Salisbury, this island, which is naturally productive of plenty and variety of provisions, was overflowed with every thing that could inflame a luxurious appet.i.te. The same writer tells us, that he was present at an entertainment which lasted from three P. M. to midnight, at which delicacies were served up, which had been brought from Constantinople, Babylon, Alexandria, Palestine, Tripoli, Syria, and Phoenicia. These delicacies were doubtless very expensive. Thomas Becket (says his historian Fitz-Stephen) gave 5, equivalent to 75 at present, for one dish of eels. The sumptuous entertainments which the kings of England gave to their n.o.bles and prelates, at the festivals of Christmas, Easter, and Whitsuntide, in which they spent a great part of their revenues, contributed very much to diffuse a taste for profuse and expensive banqueting. It was natural for a proud and wealthy baron to imitate, in his own castle, the entertainments he had seen in the palace of his prince. Many of the clergy, too, both seculars and regulars, being very rich, kept excellent tables.

The monks of St. Swithin's, at Winchester, made a formal complaint to Henry II. against their abbot, for taking away three of the 13 dishes they used to have every day at dinner. The monks of Canterbury were still more luxurious: for they had at least 17 dishes every day, besides a dessert; and these dishes were dressed with spiceries and sauces, which excited the appet.i.te as well as pleased the taste. Great men had some kinds of provisions at their tables, that are not now to be found in Britain.

When Henry II. entertained his own court, the great officers of his army, with all the kings and great men of Ireland, in Dublin, at the feast of Christmas, A. D. 1171, the Irish princes and chieftains were quite astonished at the profusion and variety of provisions which they beheld, and were with difficulty prevailed upon by Henry to eat the flesh of cranes, a kind of food to which they had not been accustomed. In the remaining monuments of this period, we meet with the names of several dishes, as _dellegrout_, _maupigyrnum_, _karumpie_, &c. the composition of which is now unknown.

The coronation feast of Edward III. cost 2835. 18s. 2d. equivalent to about 40,000 of our money. At the installation of Ralph, abbot of St.

Augustine, Canterbury, A. D. 1309, 6000 guests were entertained with a dinner, consisting of 3000 dishes, which cost 287. 5s. equal in value to 4300 in our times. "It would require a long treatise (says Matthew Paris) to describe the astonishing splendour, magnificence, and festivity, with which the nuptials of Richard Earl of Cornwall, and Cincia daughter of Raymund Earl of Provence, were celebrated at London, A. D. 1243. To give the reader some idea of it, in a few words, above 30,000 dishes were served up at the marriage dinner."

The nuptials of Alexander III. of Scotland, and the princess Margaret of England, were solemnized at York, A. D. 1251, with still greater pomp and profusion. "If I attempted (says M. Paris) to display all the grandeur of this solemnity,--the numbers of the n.o.ble and ill.u.s.trious guests,--the richness and variety of the dresses,--the sumptuousness of the feasts,--the mult.i.tudes of the minstrels, mimics, and others whose business it was to amuse and divert the company, those of my readers who were not present, would imagine that I was imposing upon their credulity.

The following particular will enable them to form a judgment of the whole.

The archbishop of York made the King of England a present of 60 fat oxen; which made only one article of provision for the marriage feast, and were all consumed at that entertainment. The marriage feast of Henry IV. and his queen, Jane of Navarre, consisted of six courses; three of flesh and fowl, and three of fish. All these courses were accompanied and adorned with _suttleties_, as they were called. These suttleties were figures in pastry, of men, women, beasts, birds, &c. placed on the table, to be admired, but not touched. Each figure had a label affixed to it, containing some wise or witty saying, suited to the occasion of the feast, which was the reason they were called suttleties."

The installation feast of George Neville, archbishop of York, and chancellor of England, exceeded all others in splendour and expense, and in the number and quality of the guests. The reader may form some idea of this enormous feast, from the following list of provisions prepared for it. In wheat, 300 quarters; in ale, 300 tuns; in wine, 100 tuns; in ypocra.s.se pipes, 1; in oxen, 104; in wild bulls, 6; in muttons, 1000; in veals, 304; in porks, 304; in swans, 400; in geese, 2000; in capons, 1000; in pigs, 2000; in plovers, 400; in quails, 1200; in fowls called rees, 2400; in peac.o.c.ks, 104; in mallards and teals, 4000; in cranes, 204; in kids, 204; in chickens, 2000; in pigeons, 2000; in conies, 4000; in bitterns, 204; in heronshaws, 400; in pheasants, 200; in partridges, 500; in woodc.o.c.ks, 400; in curlews, 100; in egritis, 1000; in stags, bucks, and roes, 500 and more; in pasties of venison, cold, 4000; in parted dishes of jellies, 1000; in plain dishes of jellies, 3000; in cold tarts, baked, 4000; in cold custards, baked, 3000; in hot pasties of venison, 1500; in hot custards, 2000; in pikes and breams, 308; in porpoises and seals, 12: spices, sugared delicates, and wafers, plenty. No turkeys are mentioned in this enormous bill of fare, because they were not then known in England.

Cranes, heronshaws, porpoises, and seals, are seldom seen at modern entertainments. One of the most expensive singularities attending the royal feasts in those days, consisted in what they called _Intermeats_.

These were representations of battles, sieges, &c. introduced between the courses, for the amus.e.m.e.nt of the guests. The French excelled in exhibitions of this kind. At a dinner given by Charles V. of France to the emperor Charles IV. A. D. 1378, the following intermeat was exhibited: a ship, with masts, sails, and rigging, was seen first; she had for colours the arms of the city of Jerusalem: G.o.dfrey of Bouillon appeared upon deck, accompanied by several knights armed cap-a-pie: the ship advanced into the middle of the hall, without the machine which moved it being perceptible.

Then the city of Jerusalem appeared, with all its towers lined with Saracens. The ship approached the city; the Christians landed, and began to a.s.sault, while the besieged made a good defence: several scaling-ladders were thrown down; but at length the city was taken.

Intermeats at ordinary banquets consisted of certain delicate dishes, introduced between the courses, and designed rather for gratifying the taste, than for satisfying hunger. At those feasts, besides ale and cider, there were great quant.i.ties of wine of various kinds. Of these, a poet who wrote in the fourteenth century, gives an ample enumeration; wherein he mentions ypocra.s.se, malespine, algrade, garnade, and other kinds now hardly known. Some of these liquors, as ypocra.s.se, pyment, and claret, were compounded of wine, honey, and spices, of different kinds, and in different proportions.

The chapter concludes with the FEAST OF LANTERNS.--In China, this is a celebrated festival, held from the thirteenth to the sixteenth day of the first month; so called from the immense number of lanterns hung out of the houses and streets; which, it is said, is no less than two hundred millions. On this day are exposed lanterns of all prices, whereof some are said to cost two thousand crowns. Some of their grandees retrench somewhat every day out of the regular expenses of their table, dress, equipage, &c.

to appear the more magnificent in their lanterns. They are adorned with gilding, sculpture, painting, j.a.panning, &c. and their size is extravagant; some being from twenty-five to thirty feet diameter, representing halls and chambers. Two or three such machines together would make handsome houses; so that in China they are able to eat, lodge, receive visits, hold b.a.l.l.s, and act plays, in a lantern. To illuminate them, they light up in them an incredible number of torches or lamps, which at a distance have a beautiful effect. In these they exhibit various kinds of shows, to divert the people. Besides these enormous lanterns, there is a mult.i.tude of smaller ones, each about four feet high, and one and a half broad.

CHAP. LXII.

CURIOSITIES RESPECTING THE CUSTOMS OF MANKIND.--(_Continued._)

_Origin of the Sheriff's counting Hobnails--Origin of the Order of the Garter--Origin and History of the Claim and Allowance of the 'Benefit of Clergy' in Criminal Convictions--Curious Tenures--The Origin of May Poles and Garlands--Curious Custom at Oakham--Curious Practice in North Holland._

ORIGIN OF THE SHERIFF'S COUNTING HOBNAILS.--This is not an absurd custom of antiquity, such as n.o.body knows when it begun, or why it is continued; but it originated from the following circ.u.mstances:--

In former times, when money was very scarce, and when we had no larger coin than a penny, the reserved rents or grants of lands or tenements, especially small ones, were usually paid in something that had a reference to the nature of the thing granted, or the occupation of the grantee.

The two following extracts from records in the Exchequer, with the translation, will clear up the point.

"Walter de Brun Mareschallus, de Stranda, redit compotum de s.e.x femis equorum, pro habenda quadam placea in Parochia St. Clementis, ad fabrica quam ibidem locandam."--_Mag. Rot. 19. Henry III._

"Walter Mareschallus, ad Crucem Lapideam, redit s.e.x ferra equorum c.u.m clavibus, pro quadam fabrica quam de Rege tenet in capite ex opposito crucis lapidea."--_Memor. 1. Edward I._

"Walter le Brun, Mareshall, or farrier, of the Strand, renders six horse-shoes, to have a certain place in the parish of St. Clement's, to build a forge there."--_Great Rolls of the 19th Henry III._

"Walter Mareshall, or the farrier at the Stone Cross, renders six horse-shoes with their nails, for (or as a reserved rent) a certain forge, opposite to the stone cross, which he holds of the king in capite."--_Memoranda Rolls in the Exchequer of the first year of King Edward the First._

The first of these points out the beginning, as well as the reason, of the payment of these horse-shoes and nails; for it was to have a piece of ground to build a forge on, therefore that must be the first payment. The nineteenth year of Henry the Third falls in with 1234, now five hundred and eighty-eight years ago. In process of time, this piece of ground, and buildings on it, came to the mayor and citizens of London; and they, by the sheriffs, have continued to render them into the Exchequer annually to this day.

The spot where the stone cross once stood had afterwards a Maypole erected on it, which many now living can well remember.

ORIGIN OF THE ORDER OF THE GARTER.--This is variously related by historians. The common and not improbable account is, that the Countess of Salisbury, happening at a ball to drop her garter, the King took it up, and presented it to her in these words, "_Honi soit qui mal y pense_;" i.

e. Evil to him that evil thinks. This accident gave rise to the order and the motto; it being the spirit of the times to mix love and war together.

In the original statutes, however, there is not the least hint of allusion to such a circ.u.mstance, farther than is conveyed in the motto.--Camden, Fern, &c. take the order to have been inst.i.tuted on occasion of the victory obtained by Edward over the French, at the battle of Cressy. That prince, says some historians, ordered his garter to be displayed as a signal of battle; in commemoration whereof, he made a garter the princ.i.p.al ornament of the order erected in memory of this signal victory, and the symbol of this indissoluble union of the knights. And they account for the motto, that king Edward having laid claim to the kingdom of France, denounced shame and defiance upon him that should dare to _think amiss_ of the just enterprise he had undertaken for recovering his lawful rights to that crown; and that the bravery of those knights whom he had elected into this order was such as would enable him to maintain the quarrel against those that thought ill of it. This interpretation, however, appears to be rather forced.--A still more ancient origin of this order is given in Rostel's Chronicle, lib. vi. quoted by Granger, in the Supplement to his Biographical History: viz. that it was devised by Richard I. at the siege of Acre, when he caused twenty-six knights, who firmly stood by him, to wear thongs of blue leather about their legs; and that it was revived and perfected in the nineteenth year of Edward III.

ORIGIN AND HISTORY OF THE CLAIM AND ALLOWANCE OF THE 'BENEFIT OF CLERGY'

IN CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS.

The following learned dissertation is extracted from 'Chitty's Practical Treatise on the Criminal Law.'

"By far the most important circ.u.mstance intervening between conviction and judgment, is the claim and allowance of the _Benefit of Clergy_, in those cases where it is by law to be granted. It is of course claimed immediately before judgment at the a.s.sizes. This is one of the most singular relics of old superst.i.tion, and certainly the most important.

That, by a mere form, without the shadow of existing reason to support it, the severity of the common law should be tempered, may seem strange to those who have been accustomed to regard our criminal law as a regular fabric, not only attaining great practical benefit, but built upon solid and consistent principles. The _Benefit of Clergy_ is, no doubt, of great practical advantage, compared to the dreadful list of offences which would otherwise be punished as capital; but it would be well worthy of an enlightened age to forsake such a subterfuge, and at once, without resorting to it, to apportion the degree of suffering to the atrocity and the danger of the crimes.

"The history of this singular mode of pardon, if so it can be termed, is both curious and instructive. In the early periods of European civilization, after the final destruction of the Roman empire, the church obtained an influence in the political affairs of nations, which threw a peculiar colouring over their original inst.i.tutions. Monarchs who were desirous of atoning for atrocious offences, or of obtaining the sanction of heaven to their projects of ambition, were easily persuaded to confer immunities on the clergy, whom they regarded as the vicegerents of G.o.d.

Presuming on these favours, that aspiring body soon began to claim as a right what had been originally conferred as a boon, and to found their demand to civil exemptions on a divine and indefeasible charter, derived from the text of scripture, "Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm." It need exceed no surprise that they were anxious to take advantage of their dominion over the conscience, to exempt themselves from the usual consequences of crime. To the priests, impunity was a privilege of no inconsiderable value. And so successful was the pious zeal to shield those who were dedicated to religion from the consequences of any breach of temporal enactments, that in several countries they obtained complete exemption from all civil liabilities, and declared themselves responsible only to the pope and his ecclesiastical ministers. They erected themselves into an independent community, and even laid the temporal authorities under subjection. n.o.bles were intimidated into vast pecuniary benefactions, and princes trembled at the terrors of spiritual denunciation. In England, however, this authority was always comparatively feeble. The complete exemption of the clergy from secular punishments, though often claimed, was never universally admitted: for repeated objections were made to the demand of the bishop and ordinary to have the clerks remitted to them as soon as they were indicted. At length, however, it was finally settled in the reign of Henry VI. that the prisoner should first be arraigned and might then claim the _Benefit of the Clergy_ as an excuse for pleading, or might demand it after conviction: and the latter of these courses has been almost invariably adopted, to allow the prisoner the chance of a verdict of acquittal.

"But if the privileges of the church were less dangerous in England than on the continent, they soon became more extensive. They not only embraced every order of clergymen, but were claimed for every subordinate officer of religious houses, with the numerous cla.s.ses of their retainers. And so liberal was the application of these dangerous benefits, that, at length, every one who in those days of ignorance was able to read, though not even initiated in holy orders, began to demand them, such reading being deemed evidence of his clerical profession. The privileges of the clergy were recognized and confirmed by statute in the reign of Edward the Third. It was then enacted, that all manner of clerks, secular as well as religious, should enjoy the privileges of holy church for all treasons or felonies except those immediately affecting his majesty. To the advantage of this provision, all who could read were admitted. But as learning became more common, this extensive interpretation was found so injurious to the security of social life, that the legislature, notwithstanding the opposition of the church, were compelled to afford a partial remedy.

"In the reign of Henry the Seventh, a distinction was drawn between persons actually in holy orders, and those who, in other respects secular, were able to read; by which the latter were only allowed the benefit of their learning once, and, on receiving it, to be branded in the left thumb with a hot iron, in order to afford evidence against them on any future occasion. The church seems to have lost ground in the succeeding reign, probably in consequence of the separation of England from the sway of the Roman pontiff; for all persons, though actually in orders, were rendered liable to be branded, in the same way as the learned cla.s.s of laymen. But, in the time of Edward the Sixth, the clergy were restored to all the rights of which they were deprived by his predecessor, except as to certain atrocious crimes, which it became necessary more uniformly to punish. At the same time, some of the more enormous evils attendant on this general impunity were done away. Murder, poisoning, burglary, highway-robbery, and sacrilege, were excepted from all that privilege which was confirmed as to inferior offences. But peers of the realm, for the first offence were to be discharged, in every case, except murder and poisoning, even though unable to read.

"But here we must pause, before we proceed to follow the gradual improvement of this privilege, to inquire what was originally done with an offender to whom it was allowed by those ecclesiastical authorities who claimed the right of judging him, and in what manner the power of the church in this respect was ultimately destroyed. It appears, that after a layman was burnt in the hand, a clerk discharged on reading, or a peer without either burning or penalty, he was delivered to the ordinary, to be dealt with according to the ecclesiastical canons. Upon this, the clerical authorities inst.i.tuted a kind of purgation, the real object of which was to make him appear innocent, who had already been shewn to be guilty, and to restore him to all those capacities of which his conviction had deprived him. To effect this, the party himself was required to make oath of his innocence, though before he might have confessed himself guilty.

Then twelve compurgators were called to testify their belief in the falsehood of the charges. Afterwards he brought forward witnesses completely to establish that innocence, of which he had induced so weighty a presumption. Finally, it was the office of the jury to acquit him; and they seldom failed in their duty. If, however, from any singular circ.u.mstance, they agreed in the justice of the conviction, the culprit was degraded, and compelled to do penance. As this seldom occurred, and the most daring perjuries were thus perpetually committed, the courts of common law were soon aroused to abridge the power of these clerical tribunals. They, therefore, sometimes delivered over the privileged of felony, when his guilt was very atrocious, without allowing him to make purgation; the effect of which proceedings was, his perpetual imprisonment, and incapacity to acquire personal or to enjoy real estate, unless released by his majesty's pardon. But the severity of this proceeding almost rendered it useless; and it became absolutely necessary for the legislature to interfere, in order to prevent the contemptible perjuries which this absurd ceremony produced under the sanction and pretence of religion. This desirable object was effected in the reign of Elizabeth; and the party, after being allowed his clergy, and burnt in the hand, was to be discharged without any interference of the church to annul his conviction.