[17] Sir Edward Coke derives the title of the court from the fact that justice was done in them as speedily as dust can fall from the foot. [18] A toll had been levied thirty years earlier (1373) for the cleansing of Smithfield, which may be referred to here. It is interesting as showing the status at this period of the keeper of Newgate. He, Adam Fernham by name, was one of those selected to levy the toll, and with two others was sworn faithfully to collect and receive the pennies, and cleanse the field, for a term of three years. Fernham must have been a man of credit and good repute to have been thus chosen. [19] For full account see Riley’s ‘Liber Albus,’ p. 41. [20] Sheriff Hoare (1740-1) tells us how the names of the prisoners in each gaol were read over to him and his colleagues; the keepers acknowledged them one by one to be in their custody, and then tendered the keys, which were delivered back to them again, and after executing the indentures, the sheriffs partook of sack and walnuts, provided by the keepers of the prison, at a tavern adjoining Guildhall. Formerly the sheriffs attended the Lord Mayor on Easter Eve through the streets to collect charity for the prisoners in the city prison. Sheriffs were permitted to keep prisoners in their own houses, hence the Sponging Houses. The “Sheriffs’ Fund” was started in 1807 by Sir Richard Phillips, who, in his letter to the Livery of London, states that he found, on visiting Newgate, so many claims on his charity that he could not meet a tenth part of them. A suggestion to establish a sheriffs’ fund was thereupon made public and found general support. In 1867 the fund amounted to £13,000. [21] ‘Liber Albus,’ Riley, p. 108. [22] ‘Harleian Miscell.,’ vol. vi. [23] The exemption of St. Martin’s from both ecclesiastical and civil jurisdiction until the time of James I., and by affording easy sanctuary to malefactors of the city, was a great nuisance. Loftie, i. 118. [24] Or “Porti-foug,” a breviary which could be carried about. [25] Riley’s ‘Memorials of London,’ p. 466. [26] State Papers. [27] See chap. iv. [28] This abjuring the king’s land was an act of self-banishment, akin in its effects to the old Roman penalty of _aquæ et ignis interdictio_. Any criminal who took sanctuary might escape the law, provided that within forty days he clothed himself in sackcloth, confessed his crime before the coroner, and after solemnly abjuring the land, proceeded, cross in hand, to some appointed port, where he embarked and left the country. If apprehended within forty days he was again suffered to depart.--Note in Thom’s ‘Stow,’ p. 157.