Notoriety, however, was attached to this transaction from the following circumstances. First, it appears to have been one of three questions put by Richard III. to his judges, with whom he was closeted in the Inner Star Chamber, to take their opinions on three points of law. The second question was, “Whether a justice of the peace, who had enrolled an indictment which had been negatived by the grand jury, among the true bills, might be punished for the abuse of his office?” On this question a diversity of opinion arose among the judges, some of whom supposed a magistrate could not be prosecuted for what he might have done; whilst others contended that he might, and cited the case of the lord chief justice above mentioned: so far was the answer of the judges strictly proper and historically true. The third circumstance to which we have alluded, and which is most material to our present question, is the application of the fine. It appears that it was expended in the construction of a clock, which was erected on the north side of Old Palace Yard; so that the judges, barristers, and students could not enter or leave the court, without having an opportunity of being reminded of the punishment of the chief justice, for presuming to violate the impartial duty of his high office; nor could they even hear it strike, whilst upon the throne of justice, without having his case repeated in their ears; thereby acting as a constant remembrancer, intimating they were to administer justice more than mercy. Sir Edward Coke observes that 800 marks were actually entered upon the roll, so that it is extremely probable he had himself seen the record. This clock was considered so important during the reign of Henry VI., that we find that the king gave the charge of keeping it, with its appurtenances, to William Warley, dean of St. Stephen’s, with the pay of sixpence per diem, to be received at the exchequer. The clock of St. Mary’s, Oxford, was also furnished in 1523, out of fines imposed upon the students of that university. With respect to the clock procured from the fine of the lord chief justice, we must also observe that its motto appears to relate to that circumstance; but though it might be said that it might relate to a dial as well as to a clock--a material observation to our present inquiry--yet, with respect to its present absence, it should be noticed, that it is probable that clock was a very indifferent one, but from its antiquity and the tradition attending it, was permitted to remain till the time of Elizabeth; then being quite decayed, a dial might have been substituted upon the same clock-house, bearing the very singular motto which, however originally applied, clearly alludes to such a circumstance as reported of the lord chief justice. This dial is placed on the very site where the clock-house stood.