Tag Archives: southwark

The Great Pudding Robbery of 1718

An amusing little story, taken from Rendle and Norman’s The inns of old Southwark and their associations (1888), another of those charming antiquarian volumes so full of observation and detail. Covering areas transpontine, there’s some significant material on the sanctuaries that I shall return to. As a taster, here’s an account of Mr Austin’s gargantuan dessert, and it’s seizure by the inhabitants of Southwark Mint, implying for the latter a level of organization, and a desperate hunger.

[I]n May 1718, James Austin, ‘inventor of the Persian ink powder,’ desiring to give his customers a substantial proof of his gratitude, invited them to partake of an immense plum pudding weighing 1000 lbs., a baked pudding of a foot square, and the best piece of an ox roasted. The principal dish was put in the copper ‘at the Red Lion by the Mint,’ and had to boil fourteen days. From there it was brought to the Swan Tavern on Fish Street Hill, accompanied by a band playing, ‘What lumps of pudding my mother gave me.’ The drum matched the pudding, being 18 feet 2 inches long and 4 feet in diameter, drawn by ‘a device fixt on six asses.’ Finally, the monstrous pudding was to be divided in St. George’s Fields, but apparently the smell and the ‘enough for all’ size of it was too much for the Minters; the escort was routed, the pudding taken and devoured; the whole ceremony being thus brought to an end before Mr. Austin’s customers could have a chance.

Source: Rendle, W.,  and Norman, P., The inns of old Southwark and their associations (1888), p286-7. Online at Archive.org.

An Account of the Southwark Mint

The text below is taken from the first volume of John Timbs’ The Romance of London, published in 1865. Timbs was an antiquarian, with a prodigious output of anecdotal compilations – over 150, according to the Encyclopaedia Britannica of 1911. These anthologies are still an entertaining read, full of remarkable events and persons, but are dated in tone and suspect in accuracy.

This extract on the Southwark Mint is notable for many things: for the description of the order with which the Minters left their sanctuary, betokening community and discipline, necessary for fending off the threats of bailiffs; the landmarks and geography; the literary links; and irregular marriages.

The Minters of Southwark.

A large portion of the parish of St George the Martyr is called the Mint, from a “mint of coinage” having been kept there by Henry VIII., upon the site of Suffolk Place, the magnificent seat of Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk, nearly opposite the parish church. Part of the mansion was pulled down in 1557, and on the site were built many small cottages, to the increasing of the beggars in the Borough. Long before the close of the seventeenth century, the district called the Mint had become a harbour for lawless persons, who claimed there the privilege of exemption from all legal process, civil or criminal. It consisted of several streets and alleys; the chief entrance being from opposite St George’s Church by Mint Street, which had, to our time, a lofty wooden gate: there were other entrances, each with a gate; like Whitefriars, it had its Lombard Street. It thus became early an asylum for debtors, coiners, and vagabonds; and of “the traitors, felons, fugitives, outlaws, condemned persons, convict persons, felons, defamed, those put in exigent of outlawry, felons of themselves, and such as refused the law of the land,” who had, from the time of Edward VI., herded in St George’s parish. The Mint at length became such a pest that its privileges were abolished by law; but it was not effectually suppressed until the reign of George I., one of whose statutes relieved all those debtors under £50, who had taken sanctuary in the Mint from their creditors. The Act of 1695-6 had proved inefficient for the suppression of the nuisance, though it inflicted a penalty of £500 on anyone who should rescue a prisoner, and made the concealment of the rescuer a transportable offence. In 1705, a fraudulent bankrupt fled here from his creditors, when the Mint-men resisted a large body of constables, and a desperate conflict ensued at the gate before the rogue was taken. A child had been murdered within these precincts, when the coroner’s officer was seized by the Mint-men, thrown into “the Black Ditch” of liquid mud; and, though rescued by constables, he was not suffered to depart until he had taken an oath on a brick, in their cant terms, never to come into that place again.

At the clearance of the place, in 1723, the exodus was a strange scene: “Some thousands of the Minters went out of the land of bondage, alias the Mint, to be cleared at the quarter-sessions of Guildford, according to the late Act of Parliament. The road was covered with them, insomuch that they looked like one of the Jewish tribes going out of Egypt; the cavalcade consisting of caravans, carts, and waggons, besides numbers on horses, asses, and on foot. The drawer of the two fighting cocks was seen to lead an ass loaded with geneva, to support the spirits of the ladies upon the journey. ‘Tis said that several heathen bailiffs lay in ambuscade in ditches on the road to surprise some of them, if possible, on their march, if they should straggle from the main body; but they proceeded with so much order and discipline that they did not lose a man upon this expedition.”

The Mint was noted as the retreat of poor poets. When it was a privileged place, “poor Nahum Tate” was forced to seek shelter here from extreme poverty, where he died in 1716: he had been ejected from the laureateship, at the accession of George I., to make way for Rowe. Pope does not spare the needy poets:

No place is sacred, not the church is free,
E’en Sunday shines no Sabbath-day to me:
Then from the Mint walks forth the man of rhyme,
Happy to catch me just at dinner-time.

Johnson has truly said: “The great topic of his (Pope’s) ridicule is poverty; the crimes with which he reproaches his antagonists are their debts, their habitation in the Mint, and their want of a dinner.”

In Gay’s Beggars’ Opera, one of the characters (Trapes) says: “The Act for destroying the Mint was a severe cut upon our business. Till then, if a customer stept out of the way, we knew where to have her.” Mat o’ the Mint is one of Macheath’s gang. This was also one of the haunts of Jack Sheppard ; and Jonathan Wild kept his horses at the Duke’s Head, in Redcross Street, within the precincts of the Mint. Marriages were performed here, as in the Fleet, the Savoy, and in May Fair. In 1715, an Irishman, named Briand, was fined £2000 for marrying an orphan, about thirteen years of age, whom he decoyed into the Mint. The following curious certificate was produced at his trial: “Feb. 16, 1715. These are therefore to whom it may concern, that Isaac Briand and Watson Anne Astone were joined together in the holy state of matrimony (Nemine contradicente) the day and year above written, according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church of Great Britain. — Witness my hand, Jos. Smith, Cler.”

The Mint of the present century was mostly noted for its brokers’ shops, and its “lodgings for travellers;” and in one of the wretched tenements of its indigent and profligate population occurred the first case of Asiatic cholera in 1832. Few of the old houses remain.

From Timbs, Romances of London, volume 1, pp.349-352, available from Archive.org.

The Law against Southwark Mint

One of the most important questions about the 1697 law was whether it was successful in closing down the sanctuaries. This law from 1722 shows that at least in the case of The Mint in Southwark it was not. It’s a very convoluted, repetitive text, presumably to avoid leaving any loop-holes, leeway or hope to the residents of the sanctuary. I will write a longer analysis in due course – to spare the reader this tortuous text as much as anything else! – but here’s a few preliminary comments:

It starts by acknowledging the failure of the previous law, that “hath not proved effectual within the said place, commonly called Suffolk-place or the Mint” and that the area was “notorious” for the “dangerous riots and tumults [that] have been frequently occasioned, and great mischiefs done by many inhabitants in the said place …. unlawfully assembling themselves, and with force opposing the execution of legal process.”

It is directed against debtors, and can be set in process by creditors, “by any person or persons, who have or hath, or shall have any debt or debts, sum or sums of money, due or owing to him, her or them, from any person or persons now being, or which hereafter shall be or reside within the said place or places ….”

It extensively criminalises resistance to the King’s law, anyone who “shall be any ways contriving, or knowingly and willingly abetting, aiding or assisting, in resisting any such officer or officers, or in rescuing any such prisoner or prisoners taken as aforesaid, or shall presume to exercise any unlawful jurisdiction, or make or execute, or join in the making or executing any pretended rule, order or ordinance, for supporting any pretended privilege …. or any the limits, or pretended limits thereof, contrary to law, or for opposing or hindering the due execution of any legal process, or any lawful warrant, or any rule, order or decree of any court of law or equity ….”

It specifically mentions anonymity: “any person or persons whatsoever, wearing any vizard, mask, or disguised habit, or having his or their face or faces, or body or bodies disguised.” Here is a connection to the ‘Black Act’ (Anno 9 George I cap 28) against the organized poachers of Windsor and Richmond parks that E.P. Thompson wrote of in Whigs and Hunters. He wrote: “We have in the case of the ‘Mint’ some kind of metropolitan parallel of the forest matrix of Blacking, with debtors as foresters and baliffs as keepers”‘ and over three pages (pp.247-9) gives the only account of the organization of the Minters I have yet found. Again – and I apologise to the reader – this is something I will return to later.

Finally, it was a harsh law; offenders were to “be transported to some or one of his Majesty’s colonies or plantations in America, by such ways, means and methods, and in such manner, and for such time, and under such pains and penalties, as felons in other cases are by law to be transported.”

More anon, but for now, here’s the law:

Anno 9 George I cap 28: An act for more effectual execution of justice in a pretended privileged place in the parish of Saint George in the county of Surrey, commonly called the Mint; and for bringing to speedy and exemplary justice such offenders as are therein mentioned; and for giving relief to such persons as are proper objects of charity and compassion there.

Whereas it is notorious, that many evil-disposed and wicked persons have, in defiance of the known laws of the realm, and to the great dishonour thereof, unlawfully assembled and associated themselves in and about a certain place in the parish of Saint George in the county of Surrey commonly called or known by the name of Suffolk-place, or the Mint, and have assumed to themselves (by unlawful combinations and confederacies) pretended privileges, altogether scandalous and unwarrantable, and have committed great frauds and abuses upon many of his Majesty’s good subjects, and by force and violence protected themselves, and their wicked accomplices, against law and justice: and whereas it is evident, that an act made in the eighth and ninth years of the reign of his late majesty King William the Third, intituled, An act for the more effectual relief of creditors in cases of escapes, and for preventing abuses in prisons and pretended privileged places, hath not proved effectual within the said place, commonly called Suffolk-place or the Mint; and it is absolutely necessary, that further provision should be made for more effectually abolishing the pretended privileges aforesaid, and for bringing all offenders in the premisses to more speedy and exemplary justice: may it please your most excellent Majesty, that it may be enacted; and be it enacted by the King’s most excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the lords spiritual and temporal and commons, in this present parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, That if any person or person shall, after the tenth day of October one thousand seven hundred and twenty three, within the said place, commonly called Suffolk-place or the Mint, in the parish of Saint George in the county of Surrey, or within any the limits, or pretended limits thereof, knowingly and wilfully obstruct or oppose any person or persons, serving, or endeavouring to serve or execute any writ, or any rule or order of any court of law or equity, or other legal process whatsoever, or any escape-warrant or warrants of any justice or justices of the peace, or shall assault or abuse any person or persons serving or executing any such writ, rule, order, process or warrant, or for having so done, whereby any such person or persons shall receive any damage or bodily hurt, every person so knowingly and willingly offending in the premisses, being thereof lawfully convicted, shall be adjudged guilty of felony, and shall be transported to some or one of his Majesty’s colonies or plantations in America, by such ways, means and methods, and in such manner, and for such time, and under such pains and penalties, as felons in other cases are by law to be transported.

II. And be it enacted by the authority aforesaid, That after the tenth day of October one thousand seven hundred and twenty three, upon any complaint or complaints at any time or times to be made to any three or more justices of the peace of the county of Surrey, by any person or persons, who have or hath, or shall have any debt or debts, sum or sums of money, due or owing to him, her or them, from any person or persons now being, or which hereafter shall be or reside within the said place or places, commonly called Suffolk-place or the Mint, or within any the limits, or pretended limits thereof (such creditor having any legal writ or process taken out for prosecuting recovery, or levying any such debt or debts, sum or sums of money, and making oath before such justices of the peace, or any of them, that a debt or debts, exceeding fifty pounds at the least, is justly due to him, her or them, from the person or persons against whom such complaint shall be made, and that such creditor verily believes, that such person or persons doth then reside or remain within such a place as aforesaid) it shall and may be lawful to and for the said justices of the peace, or any three or more of them, and they are hereby authorized and empowered, in all and every such case and cases (if they in their discretions shall find it to be requisite) to issue their warrant or order, from time to time, to the sheriff of the county of Surrey, or to the bailiff of the liberty of the borough of Southwark, for the time being, thereby strictly enjoining and requiring him or them, his or their respective deputy or deputies, officer or officers (under such penalty, as by this act is prescribed for non-performance of his or their duty therein) to raise and take the posse comitatus, or such other power or force, as to the said justices, or any three or more of them, shall seem requisite, and enter the said pretended privileged place, called Suffolk-place, or the Mint, and the limits, or pretended limits thereof, and every or any part thereof, and to arrest, and in the case of reluctance or refusal, to open or break open any door or doors to arrest such person or persons, upon any mesne process or other process, extent or execution, and to seize the goods of any such person or persons, upon any execution or extent; and if any such sherrif or chief bailiff, or any his or their deputy or deputies, officer or officers, or any of them, shall neglect or refuse, upon such warrant or order, with such force, to use his or their best endeavours for the executing of such process, execution or extent, he or they so neglecting or refusing to execute such process, execution or extent, shall forfeit to the plantiff or plantiffs the sum of two hundred pounds, to be recovered by action of debt, or of the case, bill, plaint or information, in which no essoin, protection, wager of law, or more than one imparlance shall be allowed; and if any person or persons shall resist or oppose any officer or officers of justice, or any person or persons, who shall be aiding or assisting to such officer or officers in the execution of any writ, or any escape warrant, or any warrant or warrants of any justice or justices of the peace, or of any legal process, execution or extent, within the said place called Suffolk-place, or the Mint, or within any the limits, or pretended limits thereof, or shall make rescous of any prisoner taken upon any such write, process, execution or extent, within the place or limits aforesaid, or shall there knowingly harbour or conceal any prisoner so taken, or any person or persons, who rescued any such prisoner, or shall be any ways contriving, or knowingly and willingly abetting, aiding or assisting, in resisting any such officer or officers, or in rescuing any such prisoner or prisoners taken as aforesaid, or shall presume to exercise any unlawful jurisdiction, or make or execute, or join in the making or executing any pretended rule, order or ordinance, for supporting any pretended privilege within the said place called Suffolk-place, or the Mint, or any the limits, or pretended limits thereof, contrary to law, or for opposing or hindering the due execution of any legal process, or any lawful warrant, or any rule, order or decree of any court of law or equity, all and every person and persons so offending, being thereof lawfully convicted upon any indictment or information to be brought or filed within six months after the offence committed, shall be adjudged guilty of felony, and shall be transported to some or one of his Majesty’s colonies or plantations in America, by such ways, means and methods, and in such manner, and for such time, and under such pains and penalties, as felons in other cases are by law to be transported.

III. And for more effectually preventing for the future the great and enormous mischiefs and abuses, which have been riotously committed and done within the said place called Suffolk-place or the Mint, or within any the limits, or pretended limits thereof, by wicked persons in vizards, masks, or disguised habits, or having their faces or bodies disguised; be it enacted by the authority aforesaid, That if after the tenth day of October one thousand seven hundred and twenty three, any person or persons whatsoever, wearing any vizard, mask, or disguised habit, or having his or their face or faces, or body or bodies disguised, shall within the said place called Suffolk-place or the Mint, or within any the limits, or pretended limits thereof, join in, or aid or abet any riot or tumult there, or shall, in any vizard, mask, or other disguise whatsoever, knowingly and willingly there oppose the execution of any legal process, order or warrant, or assault or abuse any person or persons serving or executing any such process, order or warrant, or for having so done, all and every such person or persons, being lawfully convicted of any such offence, shall be adjudged guilty of felony, and shall forfeit and suffer as in cases of felony, without benefit of clergy; and all persons aiding, assisting or abetting, or knowingly harbouring or concealing any such disguised person or persons, being thereof convicted, shall be adjudged guilty of felony, and shall be transported to some or one of his Majesty’s colonies or plantations in America, by such ways, means and methods, and in such manner, and for such time, and under such pains and penalties, as felons in other cases are by law to be transported.

IV. And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That from and after the tenth day of October one thousand seven hundred and twenty three,all and every person and persons who shall apprehend and take any person or persons, guilt of any of the offences before mentioned, and prosecute such person or persons until he or they be convicted, shall have and receive, for every such offender so convicted, the sum of forty pounds, to be paid by the sheriff of the county of Surrey, without any deduction or fee for the same, within one month after such conviction and demand thereof made, by tendering a certificate to the said sheriff, under the hand or hands of the judge or justices before whom such offender or offenders shall be convicted, certifying the conviction of such offender or offenders, and that he or they were taken by the person or persons claiming the said reward; and in case any dispute shall arise between the persons so apprehending any of the said offenders, touching their right and title to the said reward, that then the said judge or justices, so respectively certifying as aforesaid, shall in and by his and their said certificate, direct and appoint the said reward to and amongst the parties claiming the same, in such shares and proportions, as to the said judge or justices shall seem just and reasonable; and if it shall happen any such sheriff shall die or be removed after such conviction and demand made of the said reward (the same not being paid as aforesaid) that then the next succeeding sheriff of the said county of Surrey shall pay the same, within one month after demand, and certificate brought as aforesaid; and if default of payment of the said sum or sums of money shall happen to be made by any such sheriff, the sheriff making default shall forfeit to the person and persons, to whom such money shall be due as aforesaid, double the sum or sums of money such sherrif ought to have paid, to be recovered with double costs of suit by the person or persons aforesaid, or his or their executors or administrators, in any of his Majesty’s courts of record at Westminster, by action of debt, bill, plaint or information, wherein no essoin, privilege, protection or wager of law shall be allowed, nor more than one imparlance.

V. And be it further enacted, That in case any person or persons shall happen to be killed by any such offender or offenders, endeavouring to apprehend, or in making pursuit after him or them, that then the executors or administrators, or such person or persons, to whom the right of administration of the personal estate of each person so killed shall belong (upon certificate delivered under the hands and seals of the judge or justices of assize for the county where the fact was done, or the two next justices of the peace, of such person or persons being so killed, which certificate the said judge or justices, upon sufficient proof before him or them made, is and are hereby required immediately to give without fee or reward) shall receive the sum of forty pounds from the sheriff of the county where the said act was done and committed, and upon failure of payment thereof by the said sheriff, such sheriff shall forfeit double the said sum of forty pounds, to be recovered against him, with double costs of suit, in manner aforesaid.

VI. And it is hereby further enacted, That all sheriffs, their executors or administrators, upon producing such respective certificates, and the receipts for the money by them paid in pursuance of this act, shall be allowed, and are hereby impowered to deduct, upon their accounting with his Majesty, his heirs and successors, all monies (other than the forfeited sum and sums of money, and costs of suit) which they shall disburse as aforesaid, without any fee or reward whatsoever.

VII. Provided always, That if upon the account of any sheriff there shall not be sufficient in the hands of such sheriff to reimburse him such monies paid by him by virtue of this act, that then the sheriff having so paid the said monies, shall have the same repaid by the comissioners of his Majesty’s treasury or the lord high treasurer for the time being, out of the revenue of the crown, or by record of surplusage upon any other sheriff indebted to his Majesty, upon certificate from the clerk of the pipe to that effect.

VIII. And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That in case any such apprehender and prosecutor is guilty of any of the offences aforesaid, every such apprehender and prosecutor, not being in prison for any the said offences, and convicting two or more persons of any the offences aforesaid, shall not only have the aforesaid reward of forty pounds, but shall also have, and is hereby entitled to his Majesty’s most gracious pardon, for any of the said offences committed at any time or times before discovery is made of such other two or more persons so to be convicted as aforesaid.

IX. And whereas it is notorious, that dangerous riots and tumults have been frequently occasioned, and great mischiefs done by many inhabitants in the said place, commonly called Suffolk-place or the Mint, unlawfully assembling themselves, and with force opposing the execution of legal process, so that it hath been necessary, for suppressing such riots and tumults, and to enforce due execution of the law, to raise the posse comitatus, or some other extraordinary power: be it therefore enacted by the authority aforesaid, That the necessary charge of raising the posse comitatus, or such other power as aforesaid, for enforcing the due execution of this act, or the said former act, or for better effecting the purposes thereof, shall be paid by the said sherrif, and allowed in his accounts, or be repaid by the commissioners of his Majesty’s treasury, or the lord high treasurer for the time being, out of the revenue of the crown, or by record of surplusage upon any other sheriff in debt upon his account, upon certificate from the clerk of the pipe to that effect.

X. Provided always, That nothing in this act contained, shall be construed to extend to repeal or make void the said recited act of the eighth and ninth years of the reign of his said late majesty king William the third, or any other law in force, against pretended privileged places, or for suppressing riots or tumults, but that the same shall, to all intents and purposes, be in full force and effect, as if this act had never been made, except in such cases touching which other provision is made by this act.

XI. And forasmuch as there may be inhabiting or residing in the said place called Suffolk-place or the Mint, or within the limits thereof, some persons, who by misfortunes in trade, or other accidents or calamities, have been reduced to such necessities, as have obliged them to take shelter or protection there; and it may be reasonable and convenient to give some relief to such objects of charity and compassion, upon their faithful discovering upon oath, and delivering up, and assigning all their estates and effects whatsoever, for the benefit of their creditors, as is herein after directed; be it therefore enacted, &c.

Inhabitants of the Mint assigning over their effects, &c. are to be discharged from arrests, &c. Notice must be given thirty days before the sessions to the creditors of the party petitioning to be discharged. Clerk of the peace to give a duplicate of discharge, on pain of 5l. Inhabitants &c. perjuring themselves, deemed felons. Persons discharged are not to be imprisoned for debts due before the 11th of February 1722. General issue pleadable. Others than the persons discharged by this act are answerable as before. No discharge is good, if not obtained before 10 July 1724. Bankrupts not intitled to the benefit of this act. Discharges fraudulently obtained, void. Petitioner, &c. to leave with the justices a list of his creditors, &c. persons owing more than 50l. &c. not to be discharged. No shelterer to gain a settlement without paying to the poor, or serving an office. EXP>

Taken from Danby Pickering, The Statutes at Large, vol. XV, 1765. Hand transcribed by John Levin. This text is in the public domain and may be reproduced freely.

The Sanctuaries of Southwark, 1: Montague Close

Modern day Montague Close in the environs of Southwark Cathedral
Modern day Montague Close in the environs of Southwark Cathedral

A chance find in a secondhand bookshop (thank you Kirkdale Bookshop) means I begin analysing the sanctuaries abolished in 1697 with Montague Close, in the environs of what is now called Southwark Cathedral.

The book is Florence Higham’s Southwark Story, published in 1955 to co-incide with the Golden Jubilee of the Cathedral and the Diocese of Southwark. Although sometimes sanctimonious, there are important details about the Close within it, and makes a suggestion I have not come across before, of sanctuaries as a place for religious dissidents.

An Augustinian priory was established on that site in 1106, dedicated to St Mary. It became known as St Marys Overy or Overie’s, meaning ‘over the river’ and was dissolved on October 14th 1539, with the remaining canons receiving a pension and lodging in the precincts. (Higham, p.99) (Higham’s book and the Southwark Cathedral website differ on details here: the former says 12 canons were there at the last, but implies only the Prior received housing, the later says 6 remained, all of whom “continued to live in the buildings north of the church”.)

As can be seen in the map above, Montague Close runs around three sides of the church building. It was named after Lord Montague, whose father, Sir Anthony Browne, “the man who benefited most from the sequestration” (Higham, p.100) had adapted the Prior’s house as his town residence. As it had once been part of the priory, it could be said to retain the rights of sanctuary attached to it, especially as the church remained in use. By the time of Elizabeth I, it was in “the hands of a family that remained true to the Pope, uneasy recusants more often than not were the guests that frequented Montague Close.” (Higham, p.122) Lord Montague had voted against her Act of Uniformity in 1559, asking “What man is there so without courage or stomach or void of all honour that can consent or agree to receive an opinion and new religion by force or complusion?” “The vote went against him but his loyalty to the Queen and to his religion did not falter. His commonsense honesty secured him many friends and he was undisturbed in his religion.” (Higham, p.138) War with Spain put an end to such tolerance, and “the prisons of Southwark were crowded with suspect Papists, in particular an ancient hostelry known as the White Lion, now set apart for this purpose. Government agents reported regularly that secret masses were held in the Marshalsea, that priests were hiding in Montague Close, that seditious speeches had been overheard.” Nevertheless, when Montague died, he left the Close to his wife, who maintained the support of her neighbours. (Higham, p.138)

By the 1620s, Montague Close was known as a sanctuary for debtors; Thomas Powell – who may have been the first to put into print the term Alsatia – mentions it in his Wheresoever you see mee, Trust unto Yourselfe: or the Mysterie of Lending and Borrowing. It consisted of “mean cottages and habitations for the poorer sort of people that crowded themselves together” – either there had been new building in the area, or the old buildings had been subdivided. (Higham, p.166) During the English Civil War, press gangs were reported in the liberties, Higham making the intriuging comment that the residents of Southwark were “for once unable to wrest to their advantage the conflicting jurisdictions.” (Higham, p.190) (I’ll return to the Interregnum and it’s effects on the liberties in a future post, as with Powell.)

The church,  then known as St Saviours, was in the hands of Presbyterians, one of the ministers being a John Crodacott, a graduate of Magdalen, Oxford. He held that post until shortly after the restoration when he was ejected for not accepting the new Prayer book; a hardliner, the previous year he had tried to suppress the reinstitution of Christmas as a holiday, which led to “tumults …. in the streets.” However, he remained in the precincts, living in Montague Close in a house “with many ways to go out above and below.” (Higham, p.204) Very useful when one has to leave in a hurry! The immediate area became a refuge for Presbyterians and Independents, congregations setting up in the Close,  The Clink / Deadman’s Place, and in Globe Alley, situated between the two sanctuaries. A house of Anabaptists and Fifth Monarchists was to be found on St Mary’s Dock (which now holds the Golden Hind, marked on the map above), bordering the Close but not actually part of it.

In 1706, a charity school opened in one corner of Montague Close (Higham, p.224-5); this can be taken as a sign of normality, the 1697 act being successfully implemented (although that does not go for the liberty of Southwark Mint). There was still religious defiance, but on the part of the Tories with Henry Sacheverell preaching his high Anglicism, and the successful opposition to the 1696 bill for ‘better regulation’ of the vestries.

Higham’s book is basically a religious history; there is only passing mention of debtors and criminals, who probably made up most of the population of the sanctuaries. Fair enough: she decides what she writes about. The idea of refuges for Catholics and dissenters, and the corresponding political importance of this, I have not seen elsewhere. Montague Close may be exceptional, as it was attached to a functioning church, whereas the monastery at Whitefriars was dissolved entirely, no religious institution taking its place. The vicissitudes of the time meant that those seeking sanctuary had once run the Church – first the Catholics, then the Presbyterians. This is very handy for putting down roots and getting local knowledge. But Montague Close was also a sanctuary for others as well. As ever, the historians’ fudge: More research is required!

Map generated from Open Street Map data under a CC-BY-SA license. Click to enlarge.

The 1697 act against ‘pretended privileged places’

Or, to give it its full name, An Act for the more effectual relief of creditors in cases of escapes, and for preventing abuses in prisons, and pretended privileged places. (Anno 8 & 9 William III cap 27)

This very important law requires lengthy analysis, covering as it does prisons, sanctuaries, escapes, and the debtors involved in all three. Suffice for the moment to point out that the act signaled the reconquering of the lawless areas by the newly-minted Williamite state, reform of the houses of detention and enforcement of commercial and financial contracts. Here, I shall take a preliminary look at just one part, not even a whole sentence, but the list of ‘pretended privileged places’ in §15:

…. the White Friers, Savoy, Salisbury Court, Ram Alley, Mitre Court, Fuller’s Rents, Baldwin’s Gardens, Montague Close, or the Minories, Mint, Clink, or Deadman’s Place, ….

Firstly, to clear up some confusion: there are ten places listed, two of which have nicknames (Montague Close is also known as the Minories, Clink as Deadman’s Place), and Fuller’s Rents is a different place to Fulwoods Rents. These errors may stem from the 1911 Encyclopaedia, available online and used for a base by wikipedia by virtue of being out of copyright.

This does not list all the anomalous areas in London, but only those that had gone ‘wild’, that is, were being actively used to escape the law. (This does not preclude other areas being refuges of some sort.) Of the ten places ennumerated, three are transpontine, being in close proximity in Southwark: Montague Close, the Mint and the Clink. One, The Savoy, is nominally in the City of Westminster, but under the jurisdiction of the Palatinate of Lancaster. Baldwin’s Gardens was in the Parish of St Andrew, Holborn, outside the City of London.

The remaining five are all to be found in Farringdon Ward Without, outside the walls of the City of London, but part of it administratively. Whitefriars is, of course, Alsatia proper; Fuller’s Rents are to the west, in the Temple, between Fleet Street and Kings Bench Walk; Mitre Court and Ram Alley also in the Temple, Salisbury Court just a little way along to the east, before one reaches the Bridewell. The precise locations of these areas have still to be determined – modern street names are a very poor guide, and there have been numerous Mitre Places in London.

The wild sanctuaries then are all outside the City walls, even though there were a number of sanctuaries within them prior to the reformation (Saint Martin Le Grand for example). Around Whitefriars and the South Bank are where they are concentrated, and the Savoy is also close to the river. Baldwin’s Gardens looks quite anomalous geographically.

In following posts, I will discuss each of these places individually, and hopefully produce a map showing as clearly as possible their locations and extent.

I will put the full text of this law online eventually; until then, it can be read at British History Online, alas, without punctuation. This may also explain the taking of nicknames as separate places. Such statutes aren’t easy to read at the best of times, but really!