“Walter Mareschallus, ad Crucem Lapideam, redit sex ferra equorum cum clavibus, pro quadam fabrica quam de Rege tenet in capite ex opposito crucis lapidea.”—Memor. 1. Edward I.
“Walter le Brun, Mareshall, or farrier, of the Strand, renders six horse-shoes, to have a certain place in the parish of St. Clement’s, to build a forge there.”—Great Rolls of the 19th Henry III.
“Walter Mareshall, or the farrier at the Stone Cross, renders six horse-shoes with their nails, for (or as a reserved rent) a certain forge, opposite to the stone cross, which he holds of the king in capite.”—Memoranda Rolls in the Exchequer of the first year of King Edward the First.
The first of these points out the beginning, as well as the reason, of the payment of these horse-shoes and nails; for it was to have a piece of ground to build a forge on, therefore that must be the first payment. The nineteenth year of Henry the Third falls in with 1234, now five hundred and eighty-eight years ago. In process of time, this piece of ground, and buildings on it, came to the mayor and citizens of London; and they, by the sheriffs, have continued to render them into the Exchequer annually to this day.
The spot where the stone cross once stood had afterwards a Maypole erected on it, which many now living can well remember.
Origin of the Order of the Garter.—This is variously related by historians. The common and not improbable account is, that the Countess of Salisbury, happening at a ball to drop her garter, the King took it up, and presented it to her in these words, “Honi soit qui mal y pense;” i. e. Evil to him that evil thinks. This accident gave rise to the order and the motto; it being the spirit of the times to mix love and war together. In the original statutes, however, there is not the least hint of allusion to such a circumstance, farther than is conveyed in the motto.—Camden, Fern, &c. take the order to have been instituted on occasion of the victory obtained by Edward over the French, at the battle of Cressy. That prince, says some historians, ordered his garter to be displayed as a signal of battle; in commemoration whereof, he made a garter the principal ornament of the order erected in memory of this signal victory, and the symbol of this indissoluble union of the knights. And they account for the motto, that king Edward having laid claim to the kingdom of France, denounced shame and defiance upon him that should dare to think amiss of the just enterprise he had undertaken for recovering his lawful rights to that crown; and that the bravery of those knights whom he had elected into this order was such as would enable him to maintain the quarrel against those that thought ill of it. This interpretation, however, appears to be rather forced.—A still more ancient origin of this order is given in Rostel’s Chronicle, lib. vi. quoted by Granger, in the Supplement to his Biographical History: viz. that it was devised by Richard I. at the siege of Acre, when he caused twenty-six knights, who firmly stood by him, to wear thongs of blue leather about their legs; and that it was revived and perfected in the nineteenth year of Edward III.
Origin and History of the Claim and Allowance of the ‘Benefit of Clergy’ in Criminal Convictions.
The following learned dissertation is extracted from ‘Chitty’s Practical Treatise on the Criminal Law.’
“By far the most important circumstance intervening between conviction and judgment, is the claim and allowance of the Benefit of Clergy, in those cases where it is by law to be granted. It is of course claimed immediately before judgment at the assizes. This is one of the most singular relics of old superstition, and certainly the most important. That, by a mere form, without the shadow of existing reason to support it, the severity of the common law should be tempered, may seem strange to those who have been accustomed to regard our criminal law as a regular fabric, not only attaining great practical benefit, but built upon solid and consistent principles. The Benefit of Clergy is, no doubt, of great practical advantage, compared to the dreadful list of offences which would otherwise be punished as capital; but it would be well worthy of an enlightened age to forsake such a subterfuge, and at once, without resorting to it, to apportion the degree of suffering to the atrocity and the danger of the crimes.
“The history of this singular mode of pardon, if so it can be termed, is both curious and instructive. In the early periods of European civilization, after the final destruction of the Roman empire, the church obtained an influence in the political affairs of nations, which threw a peculiar colouring over their original institutions. Monarchs who were desirous of atoning for atrocious offences, or of obtaining the sanction of heaven to their projects of ambition, were easily persuaded to confer immunities on the clergy, whom they regarded as the vicegerents of God. Presuming on these favours, that aspiring body soon began to claim as a right what had been originally conferred as a boon, and to found their demand to civil exemptions on a divine and indefeasible charter, derived from the text of scripture, “Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm.” It need exceed no surprise that they were anxious to take advantage of their dominion over the conscience, to exempt themselves from the usual consequences of crime. To the priests, impunity was a privilege of no inconsiderable value. And so successful was the pious zeal to shield those who were dedicated to religion from the consequences of any breach of temporal enactments, that in several countries they obtained complete exemption from all civil liabilities, and declared themselves responsible only to the pope and his ecclesiastical ministers. They erected themselves into an independent community, and even laid the temporal authorities under subjection. Nobles were intimidated into vast pecuniary benefactions, and princes trembled at the terrors of spiritual denunciation. In England, however, this authority was always comparatively feeble. The complete exemption of the clergy from secular punishments, though often claimed, was never universally admitted: for repeated objections were made to the demand of the bishop and ordinary to have the clerks remitted to them as soon as they were indicted. At length, however, it was finally settled in the reign of Henry VI. that the prisoner should first be arraigned and might then claim the Benefit of the Clergy as an excuse for pleading, or might demand it after conviction: and the latter of these courses has been almost invariably adopted, to allow the prisoner the chance of a verdict of acquittal.