SURVIVALS FROM HISTORY.

Shannon News, 12 October 1923, Page 4

SURVIVALS FROM HISTORY.

CUSTOMS THAT PERSIST.

It is astonishing how many things are still done in England,* and also in Australia, for no other reason than because “it is the custom” (says a writer in the Sydney “Sun.”). Kings are crowned, Parliaments are opened, people are married, courts of law are conducted in certain respects as they were 300, 500, 800 years ago. Once uipon a time there was valid reason for them; now there is none. They live by force of custom, and nothing else. Human nature (particularly Anglo-Saxon nature), is so distrustful of change that it will cling to the outward shell long after the inner sub. stance has gone. , In a book called “Curious Survivals,” Dr. G. C. Williamson gives a summary of habit's and customs of the past that still live in the present. It is a remarkable collection. The volume was published at the beginning of this year, so is quite up-to-date.

Spectators at the beginning of an Australian Parliament have often marvelled at the goings ( and comings, the bowings and scrapings of various uniformed and be-plumaged persons, who retire backwards, carrying curious objects known as maces, present printed documents to Mr Speaker, and tell him things of which he is already well aware. To the present.day onlooker, it is a. strange sort o,f pantomime. Ladies in the galleries have a vague notion that it has been invented for their delectation, as a re-' lief to the otherwise dry business of Parliament itself. Once it had a real meaning. The House of Commons was a place where you were never quite safe. You would attack the King’s prerogative; but you were liable to counter-attack. And for a "long while—right up to the time of fhe Long Parliament in 1642—the counter-attackers had' the best of it. Sometimes the King sent his armed servants to arrest members who had talked too loudly, or too much. The last time that happened was when Charles I. tried to arrest the five members of the Long; Parliament, It was an attempt that cost him his crown and his head. One. of the most curious triumphs of long ’ standing custom is seen in the English practice of examining the., vaults prior to the opening of Par. liament. This dates back to 1605, the year in which Guy Fawkes formed his plan'to blow the building sky high. In solemn state, and with owl-like gravity the Yeomen of the Guard (dressed as you see them in the Gilbert and Sullivan opera), take lanterns in their hands and walk into all the vaults and underground recesses of the big Westminster building. Do they expect to find desperadoes with lighted matches? Not at all. They know perfectly well there is no barrel of gunpowder near the premises. But it is the custom. There was a man named Guy Fawkes, who gave rise to it. It has gone on for over 300 years

THE “BAR” AND THE “BENCH.” In Australia they do not search the vaults of Parliament before starting business. But in the Law Courts they keep up a lot of century-old practices. A newly-fledged - lawyer is “called to the Bar,” though there is no Bar; and a senior one is “elevated to the Bench,” though there is no Bench. Imagine, if you can, the spectacle of five High Court judges seated on a bench!* It is more than five centuries since there was a' wooden bench on which the King’s judges did sit. In front of it, some little distance down the Court, was a wooden barrier, called a bar, which separated the superior from the lower pleaders. The more important barristers sat within 1 the! bar, and were termed Injner Barristers; and those of less importance were required to stay outside, and say what they had to say from there. They were known as Outer Barristers —outside the Bar. All have long since' vanished —In. ner Barristers, Outer Barristers, the Bar and the wooden Bench —but still wo raise judges to the non-existent seat, and we still call barristers to the phantom Bar! In Victoria there are one or two old Court criers—the present writer has heard at least one — who announces the state of Court business thus: “Oyez, Oyez, Oyez! Alf persons who have business before this honourable Court are. commanded to give their attendance, and they shall be heard!” As a rule there is no' “Oyezing” here, but almost every Court of "'Justice in Britain, whether a superior court, a court of quarter sessions; or a court* of magistrates, is stillopened with this Norman-French word, which means, of course, “Listen!” The sound started to echo through English Courts- when the Con. queror came It is echoing there still. “THIS FREEDOM.” Other obstinate survivals of former days, with nothing but immemorial custom to explain them, are the granting of the “freedom” of a city and the ringing of the curfew bell. In theory and in practice any British subject has the freedom of any city in t'he Empire, he can enter when he likes and leaves when he likes. Hundreds of years ago it was different. A newcomer was liable to be bailed up on the least provocation. To give a man the freedom of the cdty was to let him know you had enormous trust* in him, and would not stop him even if he rode up to the gates in full armour. The reasons have gone, but custom lives on. Mr W. H. Hughes, for instance, has been presented- with the freedom of thirteen British cities. But without being presented, anybody can have the freedom of them all.

When# you see usages like these surviving, though the reasons for them, are back in the mist of ages, you understand why the British public is averse t'o revolutions.