Notes and Queries, Number 38, July 20, 1850

John Gough Nichols.

THE NEW TEMPLE

Although I am unable to give a satisfactory reply to Mr. Foss's inquiries, such information as I have is freely at his service. It may, at all events, serve as a finger-post to the road.

My survey gives a most minute extent, of 35 preceptories, 23 "cameræ" of the Hospitallers, 13 preceptories formerly commandries of the Templars, 74 limbs, and 70 granges, impropriations, &c., and, among them all, not a single one of the valuation of the New Temple itself. Reprises of that establishment are entered, but no receipts.

The former are as follows:

"In emendationem et sustentationem ecclesie Novi Templi, London, et in vino, cera, et oleo, et ornamentis ejusdem … x m.

"In uno fratri [sic] Capellano et octo Capellanis secularibus, deservientibus ecclesiam quondam Templariorum apud London, vocatam Novum Templum, prout ordinatum est per totum consilium totius regni, pro animabus fundatorum dicti Novi Templi et alia [sic] possessionum alibi … lv m.

"Videlicet, frati Capellano, pro se et ecclesia, xv m., et cuilibet Capellano, v m., ubi solebant esse, tempore Templariorum, unus Prior ecclesie et xij Capellani seculares.

"Item in diversis pensionibus solvendis diversis personis per annum, tam in Curia domini Regis, quam Justiciariis Clericis, Officiariis, et aliis ministris, in diversis Curiis suis, ac etiam aliis familiaribus magnatum, tam pro terris tenementis, redditibus, et libertatibus hospitalis, quam Templariorum, et maxime pro terris Templariorum manutenendis, videlicet, Baronibus in Scaccario domini Regis Domino Roberto de Sadyngton, militi, Capitali baroni de Scaccario, xl." &c. &c.

enumerating pensions to the judges, clerks, &c., in all the courts, to the amount of above 60l. per annum. To

"Magnatibus, secretariis, et familiaribus domini Regis et aliorum;"

the pensions enumerated amount to about 440l. per annum.

Then, to the treasurer, barons, clerks, &c., of the Exchequer (140 persons):

"Bis in anno, videlicet, tempore yemali, pilliola furrata pellura minuti varii et bogeti, et quedam non furrata; et tempore estivali totidem pilliola lineata de sindone, et quedam non lineata, unicuique de Curia Scaccarii predicti, tam minoribus quam majoribus, secundum gradus, statum, et officium personarum predictarum, que expense se extendunt annuatim ad … x ii."

"Item sunt alie expense facte in Curiis Regis annuatim pro officio generalis procuratoris in diversis Curiis Regis, que de necessitate fieri oportet, pro brevibus Regis, et Cartis impetendis, et aliis, negociis in eisdem Curiis expediendis, que ad minus ascendunt per annum, prout evidencius apparet, per compotum et memoranda dicti fratris de Scaccario qui per capitulum ad illud officium oneratur … lx m."

"Item in donis dandis in Curiis domini Regis et aliorum magnatum pro favore habendo et pro placitis defendendis, et expensis parlialmentorum, ad minus bis per annum … cc m."

I have made these extracts somewhat more at length than may, perhaps, be to the point in question, because they contain much that is highly interesting as to the apparently questionable mode in which the Hospitallers obtained the protection of the courts (and probably they were not singular in their proceedings); annual pensions to judges, besides other largesses, and much of this "pro favore habendo," contrasts painfully with the "spotless purity of the ermine" which dignifies our present age.

In the "extent" we have occasionally a grange held rent free for life by a judge. Chief Justice Geffrey de Scrop so held that of Penhull in Northumberland.

Putting all these facts together, and bearing in mind that, throughout this elaborate "extent," there are neither profits nor rent entered, as for the Temple itself, so that it seems to have then been neither in the possession nor occupation of the Hospitallers, is it not possible that they had alienated it to the lawyers, as a discharge for these heavy annual incumbrances,—prospectively, perhaps, because by the entry of these charges among the "reprise," the life interests, at all events, were still paid; or perhaps the alienation was itself made to them "pro favore habendo" in some transaction that the Hospitallers wished to have carried by the Courts; or it may have been made as a bonâ fide bribe for future protection. At all events, when we see such extensive payments made annually to the lawyers, their ultimate possession of the fee simple is no unnatural result. But, as I am altogether ignorant of the history of the New Temple, I must refrain from suggestions, giving the simple facts as I find them, and leaving the rest to the learning and investigation of your correspondent.

L.B.L.

STRANGERS IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS

(Vol. ii., pp. 17. 83.)

Mr. Ross is right in saying that "no alteration has taken place in the practice of the House of Commons with respect to the admission of strangers." The practice was at variance with the old sessional order: it is consistent with the new standing order of 1845. I do not understand how any one can read these words of the new standing order, "that the sergeant-at-arms … do take into his custody any stranger whom he may see … in any part of the house or gallery appropriated to the members of the House: and also any stranger who, having been admitted into any other part of the house or gallery," &c., and say that the House of Commons does not now recognise the presence of strangers; nor can I understand how Mr. Ross can doubt that the old sessional order absolutely prohibited their presence. It did not keep them out certainly, for they were admitted in the teeth of it; but so long as that sessional order was in force, prohibition to strangers was the theory.

Mr. Ross refers to publication of speeches. Publication is still prohibited in theory. Mr. Ross perhaps is not aware that the prohibition of publication of speeches rests on a foundation independent of the old sessional order against the presence of strangers,—on a series of resolutions declaring publication to be a breach of the privileges of Parliament, to be found in the Journals of 1642, 1694, 1695, 1697, 1703, 1722, and 1724.

We unfortunately cannot settle in your columns whether, as Mr. Ross asserts, "if a member in debate should inadvertently allude to the possibility of his observations being heard by a stranger, the Speaker would immediately call him to order;" but my strong belief is, that he would not: and I hope, if there are any members of the House of Commons who have time to read "Notes and Queries," that one of them may be induced to take a suitable opportunity of obtaining the Speaker's judgment.

"Yet at other times," Mr. Ross goes on to say, "the right honourable gentlemen will listen complacently to discussions arising out of the complaints of members that strangers will not publish to the world all that they hear pass in debate." If this be so, I suppose the Speaker sees nothing disorderly in a complaint, that what has been spoken in Parliament has not been published: but I read frequently in my newspaper that the Speaker interrupts members who speak of speeches having been published. "This is one of the inconsistencies," Mr. Ross proceeds, "resulting from the determination of the House not expressly to recognise the presence of strangers." Inconsistency there certainly is,—the inconsistency of making publication a breach of privilege, and allowing it to go on daily.

As strangers may be admitted into the House to hear debates, and not allowed to publish what they hear, so they may he admitted, subject to exclusion at certain times, or when the House chooses. And this is the case. The House, of course, retains the power of excluding them at any moment. They are always made to withdraw before the House goes to a division. This is a matter of practice, founded probably on some supposed reasons of convenience. Again, on any member desiring strangers to be excluded, the Speaker desires them to withdraw, without allowing any discussion.

I have only to notice one other observation of Mr. Ross's, which is the following:

"When I speak of strangers being admitted, it must not be supposed that this was done by order of the House. No, everything relating to the admission of strangers to, and their accommodation in the House of Commons, is effected by some mysterious agency, for which no one is directly responsible. Mr. Barry has built galleries for strangers in the new house; but if the matter were made a subject of inquiry, it probably would puzzle him to state under what authority he has acted."

I do not think there is anything mysterious as regards admission. I am fond of hearing the debates, and my parliamentary friends are very kind to me. Sometimes I content myself with an order from a member, which takes me into the hinder seats of the non-reporting strangers' gallery; sometimes, when I know beforehand of an interesting debate, I get one of my friends to put my name on the "Speaker's list," and I then take my seat on one of the two front rows of the strangers' gallery; sometimes, again, I go down on the chance, while the House is sitting; and if I am fortunate enough to find any one of any friends there, he generally brings me, in a few moments, an order from the Sergeant-at-arms, which takes me also to the front row of the strangers' gallery. Some benches under the strangers' gallery are reserved for peers, ambassadors, and peers' eldest sons. The Speaker and the Sergeant-at-arms give permission generally to foreigners, and sometimes to some other persons, to sit in these benches. I do not know which officer of the House of Commons superintends the admission of reporters. Ladies are admitted to the Black Hole assigned to them, by orders from the Sergeant-at-arms. I have no doubt that the Speaker and Sergeant-at-arms are responsible to the House for everything relating to the admission of strangers, and without taking upon myself to say what is the authority under which Mr. Barry has acted, I have no doubt that, in building galleries for strangers in the new house, he has done what is consistent not only with the long established practice, but, under the new order of 1845, with the theory of the House of Commons.

As regards the passage quoted by Mr. Jackson from the Edinburgh Review, the reviewer would probably allow that he had overlooked the new standing order of 1845; and Mr. Jackson will perceive that the recognition of the presence of strangers does not legalise the publication of speeches. The supposed difficulty in the way of legalising publication is, that the House of Commons would then make itself morally responsible for the publication of any libellous matter in speeches. I do not see the force of this difficulty. But the expediency of the existing rule is not a proper subject for discussion in your columns.

CH.

Whatever the present practice of the House of Commons with respect to strangers may be, it does not seem probable that it will soon undergo alteration. In the session of 1849 a Select Committee, composed of fifteen members, and including the leading men of all parties, was appointed "to consider the present practice of this House in respect of the exclusion of strangers." The following is the Report of the Committee in extenso (Parl. Pap., No. 498. Sess. 1849):

"That the existing usage of excluding strangers during a division, and upon the notice by an individual Member that strangers are present, has prevailed from a very early period of parliamentary history; that the instances in which the power of an individual Member to exclude has been exercised have been very rare: and that it is the unanimous opinion of your committee, that there is no sufficient ground for making any alteration in the existing practice with regard to the admission or exclusion of strangers."

This Report confirms the statement of Mr. Ross (p. 83., antè), that within his experience of thirty-one years no change has been made in the present rule of the House upon this matter, which, it would seem, dates very far back. The Speaker was the only witness examined before the Committee, and his evidence is not printed.

Arun.

REPLIES TO MINOR QUERIES

Morganatic Marriage (Vol. ii., p. 72.).—According to M., Ducange has connected this expression with morgingab; but I have looked in vain for such connection in my edition of the Glossary (Paris, 1733). The truth most probably is, that morganatic, in the phrase "matrimonium ad morganaticam," was akin to the Gothic maurgjan, signifying, "to procrastinate," "to bring to an end," "to shorten," "to limit." This application of the word would naturally rise out of the restrictions imposed upon the wife and children of a morganatic marriage.

C.H.

Umbrellas (Vol. i., p. 415. 436.; ii. 25.).—In Swift's description of a city shower (Tatler, No. 238., October 17. 1710), umbrellas are mentioned as in common use by women:

"Now in contiguous drops the flood comes down,Threatening with deluge the devoted town;To shops, in crowds, the daggled females fly,Pretend to cheapen goods, but nothing buy;The Templar spruce, while every spout's abroach,Stays till 'tis fair, yet seems to call a coach;The tucked-up sempstress walks with hasty strides,While streams run down her oiled umbrella's sides."H.B.C.

U.U. Club, July 2.

Bands (Vol. ii., pp. 23. 76.)—Scarf.—I was glad to read Arun's explanation of the origin of the bands now worn by the clergy; which, however, seems merely to amount to their being an adoption of a Genevan portion of clerical costume. That they are the descendants of the ruff, there can be no doubt, just as wrist-bands have more recently succeeded to ruffles.

I cannot resist mentioning that an ingenious friend suggested to me, that the broad, stiff, laid-down collar, alluded to in the former part of Arun's communication, possibly gave rise to the modern band in the following manner:—When the scarf, still in use, was drawn over the shoulders and hung down in front, that part of the broad collar which was left visible, being divided up the middle, presented a shape and appearance exactly like our common bands. Hence, it was imagined, this small separate article of dress might have originated.

Is it Butler, Swift, or who, that says,

"A Chrysostom to smoothe his band in"?

Whenever this was written, it must have referred to our modern bands.

Who amongst the clergy are entitled to wear a scarf? Is it the badge of a chaplain only? or what circumstances justify its being worn?

Alfred Gatty.

July 1. 1850.

Bands (Vol. ii., p. 76.).—An early example of the collar, approaching to the form of our modern bands, may be seen in the portrait of Cardinal Beatoun, who was assassinated in 1546. The original is in Holyrood Palace, and an engraving in Mr. Lodge's Portraits. The artist is unknown, but from the age of the face one may infer that it was painted about 1540.

C.H.

Jewish Music (Vol. ii., p. 88.).—See a host of authorities on the subject of Hebrew music and musical instruments in Winer's Realwörterbuch vol. ii., pp. 120. seq., 3d edit. There is a good abstract respecting them in Jahn's Hebrew Antiquities, sect. 92-96.

C.H.

North Sides of Churchyards unconsecrated (Vol. ii., p. 55.).—In illustration of, not in answer to, Mr. Sansom's inquiry, I beg to offer the following statement. During a long series of years an average of about 150 corpses has been annually deposited in Ecclesfield churchyard, which has rendered it an extremely crowded cemetery. But, notwithstanding these frequent interments, my late sexton told me that he remembered when there was scarcely one grave to the north of the church, it being popularly considered that only suicides, unbaptised persons, and still-born children ought to be buried there. However, when a vicar died about twenty-seven years ago, unlike his predecessors, who had generally been buried in the chancel, he was laid in a tomb on the north side of the churchyard, adjoining the vicarage. From this time forward the situation lost all its evil reputation amongst the richer inhabitants of the parish, who have almost entirely occupied it with family vaults.

Whether the prejudice against the north side of our churchyard arose from an idea that it was unconsecrated, I cannot tell but I suspect that, from inherited dislike, the poor are still indisposed towards it. When the women of the village have to come to the vicarage after nightfall, they generally manage to bring a companion, and hurry past the gloomy end of the north transept as if they knew

"that close behindSome frightful fiend did tread."

I cannot help fancying that the objection is attributable to a notion that evil spirits haunt the spot in which, possibly from very early times, such interments took place as my sexton described. As a suggestion towards a full solution of this popular superstition, I would ask whether persons who formerly underwent ecclesiastical excommunication were customarily buried on the north side of churchyards?

Alfred Gatty.

Ecclesfield, June 28. 1850.

I can only give from recollection a statement of a tradition, that when Jesus Christ died he turned his head towards the south; and so, ever since, the south side of a church has the pre-eminence. There generally is the bishop's throne, and the south aisle of ancient basilicas was appropriated to men. Simple observation shows that the supposed sanctity extends to the churchyard,—for there the tombstones lie thickest.

I find that my source of information for the tradition was Cockerell's last lecture on Architecture, Athenæum for 1843, p. 187. col. 3.

A.J.H.

"Men are but Children," &c.—R.G. (Vol. ii., p. 22.) will find the line about which he inquires in Dryden's All for Love; or, The World well Lost, Act iv. Sc. 1.

Dolabella (loq.):"Men are but children of a larger growth,Our appetites as apt to change as theirs,And full as craving too, and full as vain."J.R.M.

King's College, London, July 12. 1850.

Ventriloquism (Vol. ii., p. 88.).—Mr. SANSOM will find some curious information touching the words [Hebrew: 'or], [Greek: eggastrimuthos], &c., in Dr. Maitland's recent Illustrations and Enquiries relating to Mesmerism, pp. 55. 81. The Lexicons of Drs. Lee and Gesenius may also be consulted, under the word [Hebrew: 'or]. The former of these lexicographers would rank the Pythian priestess with "our modern conjurers."

C.H.

St. Catharine's Hall, Cambridge.

Cromwell's Estates—Magor (Vol. i., p. 277. 389.).—As the South Wales line is now open as far as Chepstow, it may not be uninteresting to V. to know, that it diverges from the coast between Chepstow and Newport, in order to pass Bishopston and Magor, the last of which he rightly placed in Monmouthshire.

SELEUCUS.

Vincent Gookin (Vol. i., pp. 385. 473. 492.; Vol. ii. p. 44.) is described in a Narrative of the late Parliament (Cromwell's Parliament, d. 1656), in the Harleian Miscellany, as

"One of the letters of land in Ireland, receiving three hundred pounds per annum."

He and three other Irish members, Colonel Jephson, Ralph King, and Bice, are classed together in this tract, which is hostile to Cromwell, as

"Persons not thought meet to be in command, though they much desire it, and are of such poor principles and so unfit to make rulers of as they would not have been set with the dogs of the flock, if the army and others who once pretended to be honest had kept close to their former good and honest principles."

Vincent Gookin voted for the clause in the "Petition and Advice" giving the title of "King" to Cromwell.

CH.

All-to brake (Vol. i., p. 395.).—The interpretation given is incorrect. "All-to" is very commonly used by early writers for "altogether:" e.g., "all-to behacked," Calfhill's Answer to Martiall's Treatise of the Cross, Parker Society's edition, p. 3.; "all-to becrossed," ibid. p. 91.; "all-to bebatted," ibid. p. 133., &c. &c. The Parker Society reprints will supply innumerable examples of the use of the expression.

MISCELLANEOUS

NOTES ON BOOKS, SALES, CATALOGUES, ETC

The two of Mr. Hunter's Critical and Historical Tracts, which we have had the opportunity of examining, justify to the fullest the expectations we had formed of them. The first, Agincourt; a Contribution towards an authentic List of the Commanders of the English Host, in King Henry the Fifth's Expedition, in the Third Year of his Reign, Mr. Hunter describes as "an instalment," we venture to add "a very valuable instalment," from evidence which has been buried for centuries in the unknown masses of national records, towards a complete list of the English Commanders who served with the King in that expedition, with, in most cases, the number of the retinue which each Commander undertook to bring into the field, and, in some instances, notices of events happening to the contingents. The value of a work based upon such materials, our historical readers will instantly recognise. The lovers of our poetry will regard with equal interest, and peruse with equal satisfaction, Mr. Hunter's brochure entitled Milton; a Sheaf of Gleanings after his Biographers and Annotators, and admit that he has bound up the new biographical illustrations and critical comments, which he has gathered in that pleasant field of literary inquiry, the life and writings of Milton, into a goodly and a pleasant sheaf.

Messrs. Sotheby and Co. will commence on Monday, the 29th of this month, a three days' Sale of Greek Roman, and English Coins, English and Foreign Medals, Cabinets, &c., the property of a Gentleman leaving England.

BOOKS AND ODD VOLUMES

WANTED TO PURCHASE(In continuation of Lists in former Nos.)

Odd Volumes.

MOULTRIE'S POEMS. Vol. I.

Letters, stating particulars and lowest price, carriage free, to be sent to Mr. BELL, Publisher of "NOTES AND QUERIES," 186. Fleet Street.

NOTICES TO CORRESPONDENTS

C.J.S. The Inscription from the brass in Chinnor Church, Oxon, is Mouns. Esmoun de Malyns fitz Mouns. Reynald de Malyns Chr. et Isabelle sa femme gisoient icy Dieu de ses ailmes eit mercy, being in memory of Esmond de Malyns and his wife. The father, Renald de Malyns, was interred in the same church.

VOLUME THE FIRST OF NOTES AND QUERIES, with Title-page and very copious Index, is now ready, price 9s. 6d., bound in cloth, and may be had, by order, of all Booksellers and Newsmen.

Errata. In No. 37., p. 98., col. 2., 1. 16., for "1625" read "1695"; p. 101., l. 31., "Inchiguin" should be "Inchiquin"; p. 106., col. 2., 1. 26. should be—

"And disappoints the Queen, poor little Chuck."

COMMITTEE FOR THE REPAIR OF THE TOMB OF GEOFFREY CHAUCER

JOHN BRUCE, esq., Treas. S.A.

J. PAYNE COLLIER, Esq., V.P.S.A.

PETER CUNNINGHAM, Esq., F.S.A.

WILLIAM RICHARD DRAKE, Esq., F.S.A.

THOMAS W. KING, Esq., F.S.A.

SIR FREDERICK MADDEN, K.H.

JOHN GOUGH NICHOLS, Esq., F.S.A.

HENRY SHAW, Esq., F.S.A.

SAMUEL SHEPERD, Esq., F.S.A.

WILLIAM J. THOMS, Esq., F.S.A.

The Tomb of Geoffrey Chaucer in Westminster Abbey is fast mouldering into irretrievable decay. A sum of One Hundred Pounds will effect a perfect repair. The Committee have not thought it right to fix any limit to the subscription, they themselves have opened the list with a contribution from each of them of Five Shillings; but they will be ready to receive any amount, more or less, which those who value poetry and honour Chaucer may be kind enough to remit to them.

Subscriptions have been received from the Earls of Carlisle, Ellesmere, and Shaftesbury, Viscounts Strangford and Mahon, Pres. Soc. Antiq., The Lords Braybrooke and Londesborough, and many other noblemen and gentlemen.

Subscriptions are received by all the members of the Committee, and at the Union Bank, Pall Mall East. Post-Office orders may be made payable at the Charing Cross Office, to William Richard Drake, Esq., the Treasurer, 46. Parliament Street, or William J. Thoms, Esq., Hon. Sec., 25. Holy-Well Street, Millbank.