124 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



[No. 38. 



enumerating pensions to the judges, clerks, &c., in 

 all the courts, to the amount of above 60^. jDer 

 annum. To 



" Magnatihus, secretariis, et familiaribus domiiii 

 Regis et aliorum ;" 



the pensions enumerated amount to about 440Z. 

 per annum. 



Then, to the treasurer, barons, clerks, &c., of the 

 Exchequer (140 persons): — 



" Bis in anno, videlicet, tempore yeinali, pilliola furrata 

 pellura minuti varii et bogeti, et quedam non furrata ; 

 et tempore estivali totidem pilliola lineata de sindone, 

 et quedam non lineata, unieuique de Curia Scaccarii 

 predicti, tam minoribus quam majoribus, secundum 

 gradus, statum, et officium personarum predictarum, 

 que expense se extendunt annuatim ad - - x''." 



" Item sunt alie expense facte in Curiis Regis an- 

 nuatim pro officio generalis procuratoris in diversis 

 Curiis Regis, que de jiecessitate fieri oportet, pro bre- 

 vibus Regis, et Cartis impetfudis, et aliis negociis in 

 eisdem Curiis expediendis, que ad minus aseendunt per 

 aiumm, prout evidencius apparet, per compotum et 

 memoranda dicti fratris de Scaccario qui per capitulum 

 ad illud orticiuin oneratur - - - - Ix m." 



" Item in donis dandis in Curiis domini Regis et 

 aliorum magnatum pro favors hnhendo ct pro placitis 

 defendendis, et expensis pnrliamentorum, ad minus bis 

 per annum - - - - - - -ccm. 



I have made these extracts somewhat more at 

 length than may, perhaps, be to the point in ques- 

 tion, because they contain much that is- highly 

 interesting as to the apparently questionable mode 

 in virhich the Hospitallers obtained the protection 

 of the courts (and probably they were not singu- 

 lar 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. Ciiief Justice 

 Geffrey de Scrop so held that of PenhuU in North- 

 umberland. 



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 alien- 

 ated it to the lawyers, as a discharge for these 

 heavy annual incumbrances, — prospectively, per- 

 haps, 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 trans- 

 action that the Hospitallers wished to have car- 

 ried by the Courts ; or it may have been made as 

 a bond fde 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 corre- 

 spondent. 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 stran- 

 gers." 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 i)art of the house or gallery appropriated 

 to the members of the House : and also any stran- 

 ger ?r/(o, 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 

 ]iresence of strangers ; nor can I understand how 

 JNIr. Ross can doubt that the old sessional order 

 absolutely prohibited their presence. It did not 

 keep them out certainl}', for they were admitted 

 in the teeth of it ; but so long as that sessional 

 order was in force, prohibitiim 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 pub- 

 lication of speeches rests on a foundation indepen- 

 dent 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 Par- 

 liament, 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 shoidd inadvertently allude to the possi- 

 bility 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 jiulgment. 



" Yet at other times," j\Ir. Ross goes on to say, 

 " the right honourable gentleman will listen com- 

 placently to discussions arising out of the com- 

 plaints 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 dis- 

 orderly in a complaint, that what has been spoken 

 in Parliament has not been published : but 1 read 

 frequently in my newspaper that the Speaker in- 



