Page:A History of the Knights of Malta, or the Order of St. John of Jerusalem.djvu/202

176 which the fraternity had contracted, and in the Welsh cornmanderies the trampers became the scapegoat, who, to quote the expressive language of the accountant, “multum confluunt de die in diem et sunt magni devastatores et sunt imponderosi.” The accounts of Clerkenwell, the head-quarter station of the Order in England, show that its proximity to the court rendered it peculiarly liable to this expense. The king had the right, not only of dining at the prior’s table whenever he might choose to honour that dignitary with a visit, but also of sending to the priory such members of his household and court as he might find it inconvenient to provide for elsewhere. It is not, therefore, surprising that we find among the housekeeping expenses of this establishment 430 quarters of wheat at Ss. a quarter, 413 quarters of matting barley at 4s., 60 quarters of dragget malt at 3s., 225 quarters of oat malt at 2s., 300 quarters of oats at is. 6d., in addition to a lump sum, which we may call the kitchen bill, of £121 6s. 8d., besides many minor items for meal, porridge, pease, candies, &c. It was, indeed, a long price that the community had to pay for the presence of the monarch and his satellites, yet, doubtless, they received such consideration for the same as enabled them to bear the burden without succumbing thereto.

Of all the entries on the expense side of the account, that which seems the most strange is the outlay for law charges. Many of these entries reflect much disgrace upon the administration of the law in the fourteenth century. Some of the items are innocent enough; as, for instance, the salaries of the law officers of the Order, and the fees of counsel, which appear to have been usually 40s. a year with robes. In addition, however, to these, there are numerous others which prove the barefaced venality of our courts of justice, almost all the leading judges being in the pay of the fraternity. Thus, in the exchequer, we find the chief baron, Sir Robert Sadyngton; the barons William Everden and Robert Scarburg; the engrosser, William Stoneve; and the two remembrancers, Gervase Willesford and William Broklesby, each in the receipt of £2 a year. The opponitor, Roger Gildesburgh, figured for an annual salary of £5. In the