The invention of clocks, such as are now in use, is ascribed to Pacificus, Archdeacon of Verona, who died in 846; but they were not known in England before the year 1368. They were ultimately improved by the application of pendulums, in 1657, by Huygens, a Dutch astronomer and mathematician. Although Dr. Beckmann differs in some slight degree from the previous relation concerning clocks, yet he says, “It is sufficiently apparent that clocks, moved by wheels and weights, began certainly to be used in the monasteries of Europe, about the eleventh century.” He does not think, however, that Europe has a claim to the honour of the invention, but that it is rather to be ascribed to the Saracens; this conjecture, he confesses, is chiefly supported by what Trithemius tells us, of one which was sent by the Sultan of Egypt to Frederick II., in 1232. He thinks that the writers of that century speak of clocks as though they had been then well known; he adds, that in the fourteenth century, mention is made of the machine of Richard de Wallingford, which has hitherto been considered as the oldest clock known. The fabricator of this machine called it Albion.

It appears that clocks had been hitherto shut up in monasteries and other religious houses, and that it was not till after this time they were employed for more general purposes, as the convenience of cities, &c. The first instance on record, that has been yet noticed, occurs where Herbert, Prince of Carrara, caused the first clock that was ever publicly exposed, to be erected at Padua. It was erected by John Dondi, whose family afterwards, in consequence, had the pronomen of Horologia assigned them, in remembrance of this circumstance: it is also mentioned on the tombstone of the artist. The family of Dondi now followed the profession of manufacturing clocks; for his son, John Dondi, constructed one upon improved principles.

The first clock at Bologna was put up in the year 1356. Some time after the year 1364, Charles V., surnamed the Wise, King of France, caused a clock to be placed in the tower of his palace, by Henry de Wyck, whom he had invited from Germany for the purpose, because there was then at Paris no artist of that kind, and to whom he assigned a salary of six sols per diem, with free lodgings in the Tower. Towards the end of that century, probably about the year 1370, Strasburg had a clock. About the same period, Courtray was celebrated for its clock, which the Duke of Burgundy carried away, A.D. 1382. A public clock was erected in the Altburg gate at Spire, in 1395, the works of which cost fifty-one florins.

The greater part of the principal cities of Europe, however, at this period, had clocks without striking. Clocks could not be procured but at a very great expense: of this, an instance occurred in the city of Auxerre, in the year 1483, when the magistrates being desirous of a clock, but discovering that it would cost more money than they thought themselves justified in expending on their own authority, applied to the Emperor Charles VIII. for leave to employ a portion of the public funds for that purpose.

In 1462, a public clock was put up in the church of the Virgin Mary at Nuremberg.

At Venice a public clock was put in the year 1497. In the same century an excellent clock was put up for Cosmo de Medici, by Lorenzo, a Florentine.

Having thus mentioned their origin in various places, until they came to ornament the religious houses, the palaces of kings, and the chief European cities, it now remains for us to take some notice of their existence in our own country for public use. From public documents still extant, it appears that so great was their expense considered in those early times of their introduction, that it was only the powerful and the rich who could procure them. We discover that the first clock for public and lay purposes in England was one erected on the north side of Old Palace Yard, Westminster, on which was this inscription, Discite justitiam moniti; which inscription is said to have been preserved many years after the clock-house had been decayed.

It is asserted that this clock was placed in that situation, for the purpose of being heard by the members of the courts of law; and the occasion which produced its existence is thus recorded. It was the produce of a fine levied upon the lord chief justice of the court of King’s Bench, in the reign of Edward I. A.D. 1288, of whom it appears by a book called the “Year-Book,” that this magistrate had been fined 800 marks for making an alteration in a record, wherein a defendant had been fined 13s. 4d., and he, the chief justice, made it appear to be 6s. 8d. instead of that, the larger sum.

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.

But it is said by Derham, in his “Artificial Clockmaker,” that the oldest clock in this kingdom is in Hampton Court Palace, marked with the letters N.O., presumed to have been the initials of the maker’s name, of the date of 1540; but that author is evidently mistaken, in alleging that to be the oldest, because the Oxford clock bears a date seventeen years anterior to that period. With respect to the initials, or whatever they may be, we do not consider them of the smallest importance.

From Shakspeare’s “Othello” it is proved that the ancient name of this instrument was Horologe; which various passages in our poets and old authors establish:—

Chaucer also says of a cock,

which tends to show that, in his time, clocks had been confined to religious houses.

So Lydgate’s prologue to the story of Thebes:—

With respect to our modern clocks, it would be presumption in us to say one word, as there is not an individual but knows as much about them, as we could tell him. We have fulfilled our intention in giving this historical account, which we are persuaded will afford some information. We will now proceed to

---