Page:Notes and Queries - Series 12 - Volume 8.djvu/431

i2S. vni. APKILSO, 1921.] NOTES AND QUERIES. 353 THE HABEAS CORPUS ACT (12 S. viii. 311). The following is from ' A Treatise on the Writ of Habeas Corpus Act,' by W. A. Church, San Francisco, p. 22 : The familiar story of Rome's being saved by the cackling of geese seems to have a parallel in the manner in which this Act is related to have been passed. Burnet is reported to have said that the Act was passed by an odd artifice in the House of Lords ; and in these words he tells the substance of the story : " Lord Grey and Lord Norris were named to be the tellers. Lord Norris, being a man subject to vapours, was not at all attentive to what he was doing ; so a very fat lord coming in, Lord Grey counted him for ten, as a jest at first ; but seeing Lord Norris had not observed it, he went on with the misreckoning of ten. So it was reported to the House, and declared that they who were for the Bill were the majority, though it indeed went on the other side ; and by this means the Bill was passed." This almost incredible story, however, seems to be borne put by the minute-book of the Lords, which, it is said, shows that there were only one j hundred and seven peers in the House, while Lord Campbell is credited with mentioning that the numbers declared were fifty-seven and fifty- five. The references given in support of this statement are ' Bacon's Abridgment ' (1832), vol. iv., p. 147, and ' The English Constitu- tion ' (1857), by Amos, p. 190. Burnet seems to have been the first person to men- tion that the Habeas Corpus Act was carried in the House of Lords in this singular way. This information was given to me in this excellent library. HARRY B. POLAND. Inner Temple Library. I take the following from W. D. Christie's ' Life of the First Earl of Shaftesbury ' (1871), ii., pp. 335-6: There appears to be good reason to believe that the Habeas Corpus Act was passed on the last day of the Session (May 26, 1679) by a mistake and a trick. There had been, at the last, differences between the Lords and the Commons as to amendments introduced into the Bill of the Lords, on the day of the proro- gation, on the question whether the Lords should then immediately agree to a proposal of the Commons for a free conference. The question was carried in the affirmative. Had it not been so carried, the Bill would have been lost. Bishop Burnet (' Own Time,' ii. 250) relates this story : " Lord Grey and Lord Norris (Norreys) were named to be the tellers ; Lord , Norris, being a man subject to vapours, was not at all times attentive to what he was doing ; so a very fat Lord coming in, Lord Grey counted him for ten as a jest at first ; but seeing Lord Norris had not observed it, he went on with this misreckoning of ten ; so it was reported to the House and declared that they who were for the Bill were the majority." Incredible as this story would at first sight seem, it derives support from an entry in a MS. journal of the Lords that the numbers in the division were 57 and 55, making hi all 112, while the journals record the presence of only 107 members that day. Five more, therefore, were made to vote than the total number of Peers in the House at any time of that day. Mr. Martyn improves the story by telling that, when the numbers were reported, the opponents of the Bill showed surprise, and that Shaftesbury, seeing that there was a mistake, immediately rose, and made a long speech on some other subject, and several Peers having gone hi and come out while he was speaking, it was impossible to re-tell the House when he sat down. A. R. BAYLEY. Prof. Richard Lodge, in a note to p. 164 of 'The Political History of England, 1660-1702,' writes :- Burnet (ii. 263) is responsible for the story that the Bill would have been rejected if a jocose teller had not counted an obese peer as ten men, and if the teller against the Bill, being " subject to vapours," had not accepted the figures. The story is supported by the fact that the numbers recorded in the division exceeded the total number of peers who were present. See * MSS. of House of Lords, 1678-88,' p. 136. JOHN B. WAINEWRIGHT. THE ROMAN NUMERICAL ALPHABET (12 S. viii. 250, 317). Can either of your cor- respondents explain the method by which the Romans performed the operations of multi- plication when the figures were too complex or too numerous to admit of mental calcula- tion. It was said that Lord Kelvin could suggest no solution, but perhaps it has been since explained. J. P. DE C. OLD LONDON: THE CLOTH FAIR (12 S. viii. 310). The Prior of St. Bartholomew, being perfectly aware that the greater the number of persons he could get to visit the monastery on St. Bartholomew's Day, the more would his shrine be loaded by offerings, hit upon the expedient of asking from the King the permission to establish a Fair in and about his holy dwelling. The grant was obtained from Henry II., and thus was established the well-known Bartholomew, or, as it was vulgarly called, Bartlemy, Fair, and later the Cloth Fair. A full account of the Fair its origin, and some of its peculiarities under date 1539 will be found in ' Old London Bridge,' by G. Herbert Rodwell, published by Willoughby and Co., 22, Warwick Lane, and 26, Smithfield. I possess an unbound copy of the book. JAMES SETON-ANDERSON. 39, Carlisle Road, Hove, Sussex.