rise," 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 _bona 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
w