It was on June 19th, 1483, that Dr. Ralph Shaw, brother of the Lord Mayor, preached a famous sermon at the cross. Richard, Duke of Gloucester, intended seizing the crown. Dr. Shaw was directed to make the purpose known in his sermon, and, accordingly, took for his text the fourth chapter of the Book of Wisdom: "b.a.s.t.a.r.d slips shall not take root." He tried to prove the illegitimacy of Edward V. and his brother, saying that when Edward IV. married their mother, Elizabeth Woodville, he was already the husband of Lady Eleanor Boteler, of Sudeley. Next, he expressed a doubt if Edward was in reality the son of Richard, Duke of York, and ent.i.tled to the crown of England. He made a strong point of the fact that no likeness existed between him and his reputed father. Continuing his sermon, he observed that "my Lord Protector, that very n.o.ble prince, the pattern of all heroic deeds, represented the very face and mind of the great Duke, his father; he is the perfect image of his father; his features are the same, and the very express likeness of that n.o.ble Duke."
Sir Thomas More says that it had been arranged that, when the words had been spoken, the Protector should have come amongst the a.s.sembly, "to the end that these words, reciting with his presence, might have been taken by the hearers as though the Holy Ghost had put them in the preacher"s mouth, and should have moved the people even then to cry, "King Richard!
King Richard!" that it might have been after said that he was specially chosen by G.o.d, and in a manner by miracle. But the device failed, either by the Protector"s negligence, or the preacher"s overmuch diligence."
There is not any evidence that the device was contemplated. It is suggested that the sermon is not correctly reported, and it is believed that Richard would not have submitted to any aspersion on the chast.i.ty of his mother.
William Tyndale"s translation of the Bible was publicly burned in front of the cross in the year 1527. "Cardinal Wolsey," writes W. H. Davenport Adams, in his "Book about London," "sat enthroned in the midst of bishops, mitred abbots, and princes, and attended by a large concourse of chaplains and spiritual doctors. Opposite, on a platform, knelt six heretics, clothed in penitential garb--one holding a lighted taper of five pounds weight, the others carrying symbolic f.a.ggots, signifying the fate they had deserved, though, this time, mercifully allowed to escape it. After they had made confession of their errors, and begged pardon of G.o.d and the Holy Catholic Church, Bishop Fisher preached a sermon. The penitents were then conducted to a great fire which had been kindled in front of the north door of the cathedral, and led round it thrice, casting in their f.a.ggots as they went." The ceremony concluded by Testaments and tracts being cast into the blazing fire.
Shortly after Mary had occupied the throne, a serious riot occurred at the cross. On Sunday, August 13th, 1553, Bourne, the Queen"s chaplain, preached to a large gathering of refugees and English fanatics. In the course of his sermon, he prayed for the souls of the departed, praised Bonner, and spoke in an uncharitable manner of Ridley. He was a.s.sailed with cries of "Papist, Papist! Tear him down!" A dagger was thrown at him, but, striking one of the side-posts of the cross, ma.s.sed him. Men drew their swords, and had not leading Protestants interfered, doubtless Bourne would have lost his life, and those who supported him would have suffered.
Fox, in his "Acts and Monuments," relates how Master Bradford came into the pulpit, and "spoke so mildly, christianly, and effectously that, with few words, he appeased all; and afterward he and Master Rogers conducted the preacher betwixt them from the pulpit to the grammar school door, where they left him safe." Shortly afterwards, the two men who had intervened were cast into prison, and finally suffered death at the fires of Smithfield.
Determined efforts were made to proclaim the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church, and on the following Sunday, Mr. Thomas Watson, an earnest preacher, gave a stirring sermon. He was guarded with 200 soldiers, "with their halberdes." Amongst those who listened to him, are named the Marquis of Winchester, the Earl of Bedford, the Earl of Pembroke, and the Lord Rich. Watson, some time previously, had been set in the stocks at Canterbury, by the orders of Cranmer. The time was near at hand when the teachings of the Roman Church were "heard without protest, if not with approval." The Catholics took decided measures to close the mouths of those who did not agree with them.
Mary died. In her stead, Elizabeth occupied the throne, and a change came over the scene. The new Queen dearly loved pomp. On one occasion, she went to hear one of the Reformers preach at St. Paul"s, and in her train were a large number of lords and ladies, 1000 soldiers, ten great cannons, hundreds of drums and trumpets, a party of morris-dancers, and two white bears. On Ash Wednesday, 1565, Dean Nowell preached. Queen Elizabeth was present, and a very large number of the inhabitants of London, doubtless being more anxious to see their Queen than listen to the preacher. The Dean had not proceeded far with his sermon when he came to the subject of images, which, we are told, "he handled roughly." The Queen cried out: "Leave them alone." He did not hear her, and continued his invectives.
Raising her voice, she said: "To your text, Mr. Dean! to your text! Leave that, we have heard enough of that! To your subject!" The Dean stammered a few more incoherent words, and was obliged to give up any further attempts to continue his sermon. The Queen left the place in a rage, and the Protestant part of the congregation, we are told, were moved to tears.
The most able preachers of the day, including Latimer, Cranmer, and other great men, delivered sermons at St. Paul"s Cross, and it was recognised as the seat of pulpit eloquence. Sermons were lightly esteemed unless preached here. The preachers were lodged at the Shunamite House for two days before and for one day after their sermon, and suitable diet provided for them. Soon after Richard Hooker had taken his degree (1581), he was invited to preach at the cross. He arrived in London wet and weary, and ill with a severe cold. He was carefully tended and cured by Mrs.
Churchman, who had charge of the Shunamite House. Her consideration did not end with her nursing. She persuaded Hooker that he was "a man of tender const.i.tution," and that it would be his wisest course to have a wife who would nurse him. Not only would a wife prolong his life, but would make him more comfortable. Mrs. Churchman suggested her own daughter as a desirable wife. Hooker had not courage to refuse the proposal, and in due course they were married. The union was in every respect unsuitable.
She is described as being without beauty and portion, and, worse still, she was of a shrewish temper.
The Dean of St. Paul"s, in 1588, gave public notice at the cross of the defeat of the "Invincible Armada." Important local, as well as national, events were made known here. It was here and in similar places, says a recent writer, "Londoners must have first heard of the triumphs at Cressy and Poictiers--of their glorious Black Prince and his captive, King John; as in a latter age of the victory at Agincourt." Public announcements in past ages were very important when few could read.
We read, in an old record, that on the birthday of Queen Elizabeth, on the 17th November, 1595, "the Pulpit Cross, in St. Paul"s Church-yard, was new repaired, painted, and partly enclosed with a wall of brick. Doctor Fletcher, Bishop of London, preached there in praise of the Queen, and prayed for her Majesty, before the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens, in their best liveries. Which sermon being ended, upon the church-leades the trumpets sounded, the cornets winded, and the quiristers sung an antheme.
On the steeple many lights were burned, the Tower shot off her ordnance, the bels were rung, bonefires made, etc."
The next event we notice at the cross, is in the reign of the first king of the ill-fated house of Stuart. For some years Henry Farley had, with pen and picture, done much to rouse an interest in St. Paul"s Cathedral, which, for over half a century, had been in a dilapidated condition, the chief cause being the result of a fire in 1561. In addition to trying to get bills introduced into Parliament, publishing pamphlets, he had, in 1616, pictures painted. One painting represented a procession of great personages; another, the said personages seated at a sermon at St. Paul"s Cross. We reproduce a picture of his painting of the cross. In the gallery, placed against the choir of the church, are seated the King, Queen, Prince of Wales, the Lord Mayor, and other notable men and women, and a large gathering of citizens is seated in front of the cross. The dog-whipper is busy driving away a dog. The outcome of Farley"s zeal, was the visit of James I., with his family and court, to hear a sermon here, on Midlent Sunday, in 1620. The gathering would be similar to the one represented in the picture drawn four years previously. The preacher was Dr. John King, called by James "The King of Preachers." He selected for his text, Psalm cii. 13, 14. "Thou wilt arise, and have mercy upon Zion; for the appointed time is come; for Thy servants delight in the stones thereof, and have pity on the dust thereof." It will, perhaps, not be without interest to give a few quotations from Dr. King"s sermon, as a specimen of the extravagant figures of speech which prevailed at this period, and came down to the days of William III. "I am now," said Dr.
King, "to speak unto you of litterall and artificial Zion--a temple without life, yet of a sicklie and crazie const.i.tution, sicke of age itselfe, and with many aches in her joynts, together with a lingering consumption that hath long been in her bowels, the timber in the beames whereof cryeth, "I perish," and the stone on the walles answereth no less, and part is already moultered away to stone, part to dust, and (that which is more), symbolizing with the other Zion, not only when fates and casualties, but in the very retinues and revolutions of these fates. After her building (600 years after Christ), salted with fire, sacrificed to the anger of G.o.d, and being raised, Phoenix, out of the ashes, betwixt 400 and 500 more (two in a thousand years), touched by an invisible hand, with a coal from the altar of heaven, that was never blowne, which wholly consumed the crest and vertical point, the top and top-gallant, and so scorched the rest, that ever since it hath remained valetudinary and infirm, rather peced out with an ordinary kind of physic, than restored to a sound plight." In conclusion, he said, "Set it as seale upon your hearts, that your king has come unto you. Such comings are not often; Queen Elizabeth once, and now your sovereign once. Would it be believed, that a king should come from his court to this cross, where princes seldom or never come, and that ceremony to be in state, with a kinde of sacred pompe and procession, accompanied with all the fair flowers of his field, and the fairest rose of his garden, to make requests to his subjects, not for his private, but for the public; not for himselfe, but for G.o.d; not out of reason, state policy, but of religion and piety; no lesse fruit of honour and favour with G.o.d and man accruing thereby to his people, than to his sacred Majesty. You see it, value and prize it." James I. and others gave liberal donations towards the restoration fund, but it was not until the reign of Charles I. that any real progress was made. The king and Archbishop Laud were most active in carrying out the much-required work.
[Ill.u.s.tration: THE PREACHING CROSS, ST. PAUL"S.]
The story of St. Paul"s Cross, and the interest that gathers round it, must here close. The Civil War is about to cast a gloom over the land, and bring misery to gentle and simple. The exact year the cross was pulled down is a disputed point, but most likely about 1643.
Carlyle, in his "Letters and Speeches of Cromwell," has the following striking pa.s.sage: "Paul"s Cross was a kind of stone tent, with leaden roof, at the N.E. corner of Paul"s Cathedral, where sermons were still, and had long been, preached in the open air; crowded devout congregations gathering there, with forms to sit on, if you came early. Queen Elizabeth used to "tune her pulpits," she said, when there was any great thing on hand; as Governing Persons now strive to tune the Morning Newspapers.
Paul"s Cross, a kind of _Times Newspaper_, but edited partly by Heaven itself, was then a most important ent.i.ty."
Cheapside Cross.
Among the memorial crosses of Europe, those of Queen Eleanor are the most elegant and historically interesting. Edward I. was blessed with a devoted wife, who accompanied him in his expeditions and wars. He took part in the last of the Crusades, and was, by an a.s.sa.s.sin, wounded by a poisoned dagger. His wife, it is said, saved his life by sucking the venom from the wound. The English people greatly loved her; she was ever ready to comfort those in trouble, and redress wrongs. She was married in 1254, in her fifteenth year, and died at Harby or Hardeby, Nottinghamshire, on November 20th, 1290, when on her way to join the king in Scotland. She appears to have been ill for some time, and, on October 18th, six weeks before her death, a mark (13s. 4d.) was paid to Henry of Montpellier for syrups and other medicines for the queen"s use. Leopardo, her own physician, was in attendance. The king deeply mourned her loss, and had her remains conveyed to Westminster Abbey for interment. An elegant cross was erected at every place where the funeral procession rested. Fifteen of these crosses have been traced. The details of the queen"s death and burial are hotly-contested historical problems, and no two historians agree in their statements. Of the crosses erected by Edward, only three remain, those at Northampton, Gedington, and Waltham Cross. A picture of the Northampton Cross, as it appears to-day, enables us to realise how elegant it must have been when newly erected, and before time"s defacing touch and man"s mischief had robbed it of much of its beauty.
The idea of the Eleanor Crosses was not a new one, it was, as is stated by Rimmer, in his "Ancient Stone Crosses of England," "an extension of the lich-gate system, for a corpse always rested under a "lich."" At the churchyard gates in some places, notably in Cornwall, are large lich-stones, on which to rest the coffin while the funeral procession is waiting for the officiating minister. At St. Winnow, Cornwall, an example may be seen. In some parts of the country, as at l.u.s.tleigh, Devonshire, there are resting stones for the coffin on its way to the burial ground, some distance from the church. The coverings over the lich-gates are usually of wood, but sometimes they are of stone, as at Birstal, near Leeds. At Barking, Ess.e.x, are chambers over the lich-gate, and one was formerly known as the Chapel of the Holy Rood. In other parts of the country are examples of chambers over the lich-gate. A great many of the kings of France were buried at the Abbey of St. Denis, and on the road leading to it from Paris, crosses were erected at almost every few hundred yards. The Revolution swept away the monuments.
The cross at Cheape was an Eleanor Cross, and erected shortly after the death of the queen. It is generally believed that this cross was one of the finest of its cla.s.s, but no reliable description has come down to us.
Master Michael, a mason of Canterbury, was its builder.
In 1441, the rebuilding of this cross, in combination with a drinking fountain, was commenced, and was hardly completed in 1486. Timber and lead were largely used in the second erection, which was frequently regilded.
It appears to have attained its greatest beauty in the reign of Edward VI. At his accession to the throne, it underwent considerable alterations and improvements.
[Ill.u.s.tration: NORTHAMPTON CROSS.]
A painting of the period, shewing the procession of Edward VI. to his Coronation, gives us a good idea of the cross as it appeared in 1547. It may be briefly described as stately and graceful. There are three octangular compartments, and each is supported by eight slender columns.
Its height is calculated at about thirty-six feet; the first storey being about twenty feet, the second, ten, and the third, six. Amongst the statues which ornamented the structure may be mentioned, in the first niche, most likely, a contemporaneous pope, round the base of the second were four apostles, and above them was placed the Virgin, with the infant Jesus in her arms. Four standing figures filled the top niche, and a cross, surmounted with the emblematic dove, completed the ornamentation, which was extremely rich.
It long remained a pride of the city, but as time ran its course changes of sentiment came about. Towards the close of Elizabeth"s reign, it was denounced as a relic of Popish superst.i.tion. On the night of the 21st June, 1581, an attack was made by some fanatics on the monument, and much of the carving mutilated. "The Virgin," says an old writer, "was robbed of her son, and her arms broken, by which she staid him on her knees; her whole body was haled by ropes, and left ready to fall." Although a reward was offered by the queen, the offenders were not discovered. Fourteen years later, the effigy of the Virgin was repaired, and "a newe sonne, misshapen (as borne out of time), all naked, was laide in her armes, the other images continuing broken as before."
Next, an attempt was made to remove the woodwork, and in place of the crucifix erect a pyramid. A figure of the G.o.ddess Diana replaced the Virgin. Diana was represented for the most part naked, "and water, conveyed from the Thames, filtering through her naked b.r.e.a.s.t.s, but oftentimes dryed up." Elizabeth expressed her displeasure at the operations of the fanatics, and gave directions for a plain gilt cross to be placed on the summit of the monument, saying such a simple symbol of the faith of the country ought not to cause scandal. The Virgin was again restored, but, in less than a fortnight, the figure was mutilated, and the child taken away.
In 1600, the cross was rebuilt, and the question of restoring the crucifix gave rise to considerable discussion. The matter was referred to the authorities of the Universities. All sanctioned it except Dr. Abbot, afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury, but there was not to be a dove. In a sermon of the period, the following pa.s.sage occurs: "Oh! this cross is one of the jewels of the harlot of Rome, and is left and kept here as a love-token, and gives them hope that they shall enjoy it and us again."
The new cross, which was protected by strong iron railings, was much inferior to the preceding one. In style, it was half Grecian and half Gothic. Images of a superst.i.tious character were superseded by those of apostles, kings, and, prelates, and of the original cross only the crucifix was retained. For many years, it remained without giving rise to any contention. The Puritanical zeal increased in course of time, and on the night of January 24th, 1641, it again suffered at the hands of the fanatics.
[Ill.u.s.tration: PURITANS DESTROYING CHEAPSIDE CROSS.]
At this time, commenced a literary warfare, in the form of pamphlets, respecting the cross. These were followed by its destruction. Robert Harlow was deputed by Parliament to carry out the work. He went to the cross with a troop of horse and two companies of foot soldiers. How completely he executed his orders may be gathered from the official account. It states: "On the 2nd of May, 1643, the cross in Cheapside was pulled down. At the fall of the top cross, drums beat, trumpets blew, and mult.i.tudes of caps were thrown in the air, and a great shout of people with joy. The 2nd of May, the almanack says, was the invention of the cross, and the same day, at night, were the leaden popes burnt [they were not popes, but eminent English prelates] in the place where it stood, with ringing of bells and a great acclamation, and no hurt at all done in these actions."
The author of "The Old City" (London, 1865), a work to which we have been indebted for some of the particulars included in this paper, adverts to a curious tract published on the day the cross was destroyed. It bears the following t.i.tle: "The Downfall of Dagon; or, the taking down of Cheapside Crosse; wherein is contained these princ.i.p.alls: 1. The crosse sicke at heart. 2. His death and funerall. 3. His will, legacies, inventory, and epitaph. 4. Why it was removed. 5. The money it will bring. 6. Noteworthy, that it was cast down on that day when it was first invented and set up."
An extract or two from this publication can hardly fail to interest the reader. "I am called the "Citie Idoll,"" says the tract, "the Brownists spit at me, and throw stones at me; the Famalists hide their eyes with their fingers; the Anabaptists wish me knockt in pieces, as I am to be this day; the sisters of the fraternity will not come near me, but go by Watling Street, and come in again by Soaper Lane, to buy provisions of the market folks.... I feele the pangs of death, and shall never see the end of the merry month of May; my breath stops--my life is gone; I feel myself a-dying downards." The bequests embrace the following: "I give my iron work to those which make good swords at Hounslow, for I am Spanish iron and steele to the backe. I give my body and stones to those masons that cannot telle how to frame the like againe, to keep by theme for a patterne, for in time there will be more crosses in London than ever there was yet." The epitaph is as follows:
"I looke for no praise when I am dead, For, going the right way, I never did tread.
I was harde as an Alderman"s doore, That"s shut and stony-hearted to the poore.
I never gave almes, nor did anything Was good, nor e"er said, "G.o.d save the King."
I stood like a stock that was made of wood, And yet the people would not say I was good, And, if I tell them plaine, they"re like to mee-- Like stone to all goodnesse. But now, reader, see Me in the dust; for crosses must not stand, There is too much crosse tricks within the land; And, having so done never any good, I leave my prayse for to be understood; For many women, after this my losse, Will remember me, and still will be crosse-- Crosse tricks, crosse ways, and crosse vanities.
Believe the crosse speaks truth, for here he lyes."
The Biddenden Maids Charity.
For several centuries, the strange story of the Biddenden Maids, was told by sire to son, and, in course of time, was made the subject of a broadside, which has become rare, and is much prized by collectors of historical curiosities.
The tale is to the effect that, in the year of our Lord, 1100, at the village of Biddenden, in the county of Kent, were born Eliza and Mary Chulkhurst, commonly called "The Biddenden Maids." It is a.s.serted that the sisters were joined together by the hips and shoulders.
There is not a record of any attempt being made to separate the couple, and they grew up together. When they had attained the age of thirty-four years, one of the sisters was taken ill, and shortly afterwards died. The surviving one was entreated to submit to a surgical operation being performed, and have her body separated from that of her deceased sister, but she firmly refused. She was prepared to die. "As we came together,"
she said, "we will also go together." Her life closed about six hours after that of her sister.
[Ill.u.s.tration: BIDDENDEN CAKE.]
The claims of the poor were not overlooked. The sisters, in their will, bequeathed to the churchwardens of the parish of Biddenden, a piece of land which is known as "Bread and Cheese Land."
The rent of it realises a considerable sum of money, which is largely distributed to the poor of the place in bread and cheese.
The memory of the wonderful women is maintained by the distribution, on Easter Sunday, of about a thousand small cakes made of flour and water, and having impressed upon them rude representations of the Maids.
Hone, in his "Every Day Book," gives a picture of the cake he received in 1826, which we reproduce. It is the exact size of the one sent to him.
Since Hone"s time a new stamp or mould has been made, and the old style of representing the Maids has not been followed in every detail. In the cut we give, it will be noticed no legs appear, now they are represented on the cakes.