London in 1731 [35]
and in the beginning of the reign of Queen Elizabeth, every debtor who fled to sanctuary, to shelter himself from his creditors, was obliged to take an oath of the following tenor, viz.:- That he did not claim the privilege of sanctuary to defraud any one of his goods, debts, or money, but only for the security of his person until he should be able to pay his creditors.
That he would give in a true particular of his debts and credits.
That he would endeavour to pay his debts as soon as possible.
That he would be present at the abbey at morning and evening prayer.
That he would demean himself honestly and quietly, avoid suspected houses, unlawful games, banqueting, and riotous company.
That he would wear no weapon, or be out of his lodging before sunrise or after sunset, nor depart out of the precinct of the sanctuary without the leave of the dean, or archdeacon in his absence.
That he would be obedient to the dean and the officers of the house.
And lastly, that if he should break his oath in any particular, he should not claim the privilege of sanctuary.
And if any creditor could make it appear that he had any money, goods, or chattels that were not contained in the particular given in to the dean and the church, the sanctuary man was to be imprisoned till he came to an agreement with his creditors.
The Abbey-Church of St. Peter at Westminster appears to be very ancient, though far from being so ancient as is vulgarly reported.
Some relate, without any authority to support the conjecture, that it was founded in the days of the Apostles by St. Peter himself; others that it was erected by King Lucius about the year 170. And by some it is said to have been built by King Sebert, the first Christian king of the East-Saxons (Essex and Middlesex), anno 611. But I take it for granted the church was not built before the convent or abbey it belonged to. People did not use to build churches at a distance from town, unless for the service of convents or religious houses. But neither in the times of the Apostles, nor in the supposed reign of King Lucius, in the second century, was there any such thing as a convent in England, or perhaps in any part of Christendom. During the dominion of the Saxons in this island, monasteries indeed were erected here, and in many other kingdoms, in great abundance; and as the monks generally chose thick woods or other solitary places for their residence, where could they meet with a spot of ground fitter for their purpose than this woody island called Thorney, then destitute of inhabitants? But I am inclined to think that neither this or any other monastery was erected in South Britain till the seventh century, after Austin the monk came into England. As to the tradition of its having been built upon the ruins of the temple of Apollo, destroyed by an earthquake, I do not doubt but the monks were very ready to propagate a fable of this kind, who formed so many others to show the triumphs of Christianity over paganism, and to induce their proselytes to believe that heaven miraculously interposed in their favour by earthquakes, storms, and other prodigies. But to proceed. When the convent was erected, I make no doubt that there was a church or chapel built as usual for the service of the monks; but it is evident from history that the dimensions of the first or second church that stood here were not comparable to those of the present church.
We may rely upon it that about the year 850 there was a church and convent in the island of Thorney, because about that time, London being in the possession of the Danes, the convent was destroyed by them (not in the year 659, as some writers have affirmed, because the Danes did not invade England till nearly 200 years afterwards). The abbey lay in ruins about a hundred years, when King Edgar, at the instance of Dunstan, Abbot of Glastonbury (and afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury), rebuilt this and several other monasteries, about the year 960. Edward the Confessor, a devout prince, enlarged this church and monastery, in which
That he would give in a true particular of his debts and credits.
That he would endeavour to pay his debts as soon as possible.
That he would be present at the abbey at morning and evening prayer.
That he would demean himself honestly and quietly, avoid suspected houses, unlawful games, banqueting, and riotous company.
That he would wear no weapon, or be out of his lodging before sunrise or after sunset, nor depart out of the precinct of the sanctuary without the leave of the dean, or archdeacon in his absence.
That he would be obedient to the dean and the officers of the house.
And lastly, that if he should break his oath in any particular, he should not claim the privilege of sanctuary.
And if any creditor could make it appear that he had any money, goods, or chattels that were not contained in the particular given in to the dean and the church, the sanctuary man was to be imprisoned till he came to an agreement with his creditors.
The Abbey-Church of St. Peter at Westminster appears to be very ancient, though far from being so ancient as is vulgarly reported.
Some relate, without any authority to support the conjecture, that it was founded in the days of the Apostles by St. Peter himself; others that it was erected by King Lucius about the year 170. And by some it is said to have been built by King Sebert, the first Christian king of the East-Saxons (Essex and Middlesex), anno 611. But I take it for granted the church was not built before the convent or abbey it belonged to. People did not use to build churches at a distance from town, unless for the service of convents or religious houses. But neither in the times of the Apostles, nor in the supposed reign of King Lucius, in the second century, was there any such thing as a convent in England, or perhaps in any part of Christendom. During the dominion of the Saxons in this island, monasteries indeed were erected here, and in many other kingdoms, in great abundance; and as the monks generally chose thick woods or other solitary places for their residence, where could they meet with a spot of ground fitter for their purpose than this woody island called Thorney, then destitute of inhabitants? But I am inclined to think that neither this or any other monastery was erected in South Britain till the seventh century, after Austin the monk came into England. As to the tradition of its having been built upon the ruins of the temple of Apollo, destroyed by an earthquake, I do not doubt but the monks were very ready to propagate a fable of this kind, who formed so many others to show the triumphs of Christianity over paganism, and to induce their proselytes to believe that heaven miraculously interposed in their favour by earthquakes, storms, and other prodigies. But to proceed. When the convent was erected, I make no doubt that there was a church or chapel built as usual for the service of the monks; but it is evident from history that the dimensions of the first or second church that stood here were not comparable to those of the present church.
We may rely upon it that about the year 850 there was a church and convent in the island of Thorney, because about that time, London being in the possession of the Danes, the convent was destroyed by them (not in the year 659, as some writers have affirmed, because the Danes did not invade England till nearly 200 years afterwards). The abbey lay in ruins about a hundred years, when King Edgar, at the instance of Dunstan, Abbot of Glastonbury (and afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury), rebuilt this and several other monasteries, about the year 960. Edward the Confessor, a devout prince, enlarged this church and monastery, in which