Notes and Queries, Number 38, July 20, 1850

"Hostratus cucullatus adeo graviter ob Reuchlini librum qui inscribitur, Epistolæ Obscurorum Virorum dolore simul et pudore sauciatus, et scipsum interfecerit."

See also Nouv. Diction. Historique in the account of Gratius, O.

There is also a good article on these letters in a very excellent work entitled Analectabiblion, or Extraits Critique de divers Livres rares, &c., tiréz du Cabinet du Marq. D. R. (oure). Paris, 1836. 2 tomes 8vo.

    F.R.A.

Epistolæ Obscurorum Virorum.—The article inquired for by H.B.C. (Vol. ii, p. 55) is probably one in the Edinburgh Review, vol. liii. p. 180., attributed to Sir William Hamilton, the distinguished Professor of Logic in the university of Edinburgh.

    CH.

CAXTON'S PRINTING-OFFICE

(Vol. ii., p. 99.)

Mr. Rimbault is wrong in giving to Abbot Milling the honour of being the patron of Caxton, which is due to Abbot Esteney. Mr. C. Knight in his Life of Caxton, which appropriately formed the first work of his series of Weekly Volumes, has the following remarks upon the passage from Stow, quoted by Mr. Rimbault:

"The careful historians of London here committed one error; John Islip did not become abbot of Westminster till 1500. John Esteney was made abbot in 1474, and remained such until his death in 1498. His predecessor was Thomas Milling. In Dugdale's Monasticon we find, speaking of Esteney, 'It was in this abbot's time, and not in that of Milling, or in that of Abbot Islip, that Caxton exercised the art of printing at Westminster.'"—p. 140.

I have no work at hand to which I can refer for the date of Milling's death, but if 1492 be correct, perhaps he may have been promoted to a bishoprick.

With reference to Mr. Rimbault's remark, that Caxton first mentions the place of his printing in 1477, so that he must have printed some time without informing us where, I may be allowed to observe that it seems highly probable he printed, and indeed learned the art, at Cologne. At the end of the third book of his translation of the Recuyell of the Historyes of Troye, Caxton says:

"Thus end I this book which I have translated after mine author, as nigh as God hath given me cunning, to whom be given the laud and praises … I have practised and learned, at my great charge and dispense, to ordain this said book in print, after the manner and form as you may here see."

And on the title-page he informs us:

"Whyche sayd translacion and werke was begonne in Brugis in 1468, and ended in the holy cyte of Colen, 19 Sept. 1471."

This may refer to the translation only; but as Caxton was both translator and printer, it does not seem unreasonable to regard it as indicating when his entire labour upon the work was brought to a close. I might support the view that Caxton printed at Cologne by other arguments which would make the matter tolerably certain (see Life of Caxton, p. 125., &c.); but as the excellent little work to which I am indebted for these particulars is so well known, and so easily accessible, I should not be justified in occupying more of your space, and I will therefore conclude with noting that the parochial library at Shipdham, in Norfolk, is said to contain books printed by Caxton and other early printers. Perhaps some one of your correspondents would record, for the general benefit, of what they consist.

    Arun.

Dr. Rimbault has evidently not seen a short article on Caxton's printing at Westminster, which I inserted in the Gentleman's Magazine for April, 1846, nor the reference made to it in the magazine for June last, p. 630., or he would have admitted that his objections to Dr. Dibdin's conjectures on this point had been already stated; moreover, I think he would have seen that the difficulty had been actually cleared up. In truth, the popular misapprehension on this subject has not been occasioned by any obscurity in the colophons of the great printer, or in the survey of Stow, but merely by the erroneous constricted sense into which the word abbey has passed in this country. Caxton himself tells us he printed his books in "th' abbay of Westminstre," but he does not say in the church of the abbey. Stow distinctly says it was in the almonry of the abbey; and the handbill Dr. Rimbault refers to confirms that fact. The almonry was not merely "within the precincts of the abbey," it was actually a part of the abbey. Dr. Rimbault aims at the conclusion that "the old chapel of St. Anne was doubtless the place where the first printing-office was erected in England." But why so? Did not the chapel continue a chapel until the Reformation, if not later? And Caxton would no more set up his press in a chapel than in the abbey-church itself. Stow says it was erected in the almonry. The almonry was one of the courts of the abbey, (situated directly west of the abbey-church, and not east, as Dr. Dibdin surmised); it contained a chapel dedicated to St. Anne, and latterly an almshouse erected by the Lady Margaret. The latter probably replaced other offices or lodgings of greater antiquity, connected with the duties of the almoner, or the reception and relief of the poor; and there need be no doubt that it was one of these buildings that the Abbot of Westminster placed at the disposal of our proto-typographer. There was nothing very extraordinary in his so doing if we view the circumstance in its true light; for the scriptoria of the monasteries had ever been the principal manufactories of books. A single press was now to do the work of many pens. The experiment was successful; "after which time," as Stow goes on to say, "the like was practised in the Abbeys of St. Augustine, at Canterbury, St. Alban's, and other monasteries." The monks became printers instead of scribes; but they would not ordinarily convert their churches or chapels into printing-houses. The workmen, it is true, term the meetings held for consultation on their common interests or pleasures, their chapels; and whether this may have arisen from any particular instance in which a chapel was converted into a printing-house, I cannot say. In order to ascertain the origin of this term these Queries may be proposed:—Is it peculiar to printers and to this country? Or is it used also in other trades and on the Continent?

    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.