CLOCKS AND WATCHES[1089] (ADDITIONAL).
The term Horologia occurs very early in different parts of Europe; but as this word, in old times, signified dials as well as clocks, nothing decisive can be inferred from it, unless it can be shown by concomitant circumstances or expressions, that it relates to a clock rather than a dial. Dante seems to be the first author who hath introduced the mention of an orologio that struck the hour, and which consequently cannot be a dial, in the following lines:—
Indi come horologio che ne chiami,
Nel hora che la sposa d’Idio surge,
Amattinar lo sposo, perche l’ami[1090].
Dante was born in 1265, and died in 1321, aged fifty-seven; striking-clocks therefore could not have been very uncommon in Italy, at the latter end of the thirteenth century or the beginning of the fourteenth.
But the use of clocks was not confined to Italy at this period; for we had an artist in England about the same time, who furnished the famous clock-house near Westminster Hall, with a clock to be heard by the courts of law, out of a fine imposed on the Chief Justice of the King’s Bench, in the sixteenth year of Edward I., or in 1288[1091]. Blackstone in his Commentaries has observed, that this punishment of Radulphus de Hengham is first taken notice of in the Year Book[1092], during the reign of Richard III., where indeed no mention is made of a clock being thus paid for; but if the circumstances stated in the report of this case are considered, it was highly unnecessary, and perhaps improper, to have alluded to this application of the Chief Justice’s fine.
It appears by the Year Book, that Richard III. had closeted the judges in the Inner Star Chamber, to take their opinions upon three points of law; the second of which was, “Whether a justice of the peace, who had enrolled an indictment, which had been negatived by the grand-jury, amongst the true bills, might be punished for this abuse of his office.” On this question a diversity of opinion arose amongst the judges, some of whom supposed that a magistrate could not be prosecuted for what he might have done, whilst others contended that he might, and cited the case of Hengham, who was fined eight hundred marks for making an alteration in a record, by which a poor defendant was to pay only six shillings and eightpence, instead of thirteen shillings and fourpence. Thus far the answer of the judges to the question was strictly proper; but the application of the fine to build a clock-house was not the least material[1093]; besides, that it was probably a most notorious fact to every student, upon his first attending Westminster-hall, as we find judge Southcote, so much later, in the early part of queen Elizabeth’s reign, not only mentioning the tradition, but that the clock still continued there, which had been furnished out of the Chief Justice’s fine[1094]. Sir Edward Coke likewise adds, that the eight hundred marks were actually entered on the roll, so that it is highly probable he had himself seen the record[1095].
But we have remaining to this day some degree of evidence, not only of the existence of such a clock, but that it is of the antiquity already ascribed to it, viz. the reign of Edward I. On the side of New Palace-yard, which is opposite to Westminster-hall, and in the second pediment of the new buildings from the Thames, a dial is inserted with this remarkable motto upon it, “Discite justitiam moniti,” which seems most clearly to relate to the fine imposed on Radulphus de Hengham being applied to the paying for a clock. But it may be said that this inscription is on a dial and not upon a clock; which though it appears upon the first stating it to be a most material objection, yet I conceive it may receive the following satisfactory answer. The original clock of Edward the First’s reign was probably a very indifferent one, but from its great antiquity, and the tradition attending it, was still permitted to remain till the time of queen Elizabeth, according to the authorities already cited. After this, being quite decayed, a dial might have been substituted and placed upon the same clock-house, borrowing its very singular motto; which whether originally applied in the time of Edward I. or in later reigns, most plainly alludes to Hengham’s punishment for altering a record. It should also be mentioned that this dial seems to have been placed exactly where the clock-house stood according to Strype[1096].
Mr. Norris, secretary to the Society of Antiquaries, hath been likewise so obliging as to refer me to the following instance of a very ancient clock in the same century: Anno 1292, novum orologium magnum in ecclesia (Cantuariensi), pretium 30l.[1097].
I shall now produce a proof, that not only clocks but watches were made in the beginning of the fourteenth century. Seven or eight years ago, some labourers were employed at Bruce Castle, in Fifeshire, where they found a watch, together with some coin, both of which they disposed of to a shopkeeper of St. Andrews, who sent the watch to his brother in London, considering it as a curious piece of antiquity. The outer case is silver, raised in rather a handsome pattern over a ground of blue enamel; and I think I can distinguish a cypher of R. B. at each corner of the enchased work. On the dial-plate is written Robertus B. Rex Scotorum, and over it is a convex transparent horn, instead of the glasses which we use at present. Now Robertus B. Rex Scotorum can be no other king of Scotland than Robert Bruce, who began his reign in 1305, and died in 1328; for the Christian name of Baliol, who succeeded him, was Edward; nor can Robertus B. be applied to any later Scottish king. This very singular watch is not of a larger size than those which are now in common use; at which I was much surprised till I had seen several of the sixteenth century in the collection of Sir Ashton Lever and Mr. Ingham Forster, which were considerably smaller.