Dr. Wael Badawy, P.Eng. SIEEE SACM

Cuming Walters tərəfindən.

A VERY curious and interesting phase of self-government is that which is supplied by the independent legal system established in various small islands in the United Kingdom. It is amusing to notice these little communities on rocky islets tenaciously preserving their ancient privileges, and revelling in the knowledge that they have a code of their own by no means in harmony with the statute law of the country of which they are an insignificant part. The tribunals and the legal processes in the Channel Islands, in the Scilly Islands, in the Isle of Man, and even in some of the smaller islands round the English coast, differ entirely from those established in the motherland; and any suggestion of change is warmly resented. In many cases it has not, əlbəttə, been worth while to insist on reform, inasmuch as the islands are inhabited only by a few families, who may be left in peace to settle their own differences if any occur.

There are a great many scattered islets about the sinuous line of Irish coast, very few of which are ever visited by strangers. The conditions of life in these isolated places are seldom investigated, and yet we find there are some remarkable survivals of old customs and relics of ancient laws. The people are independent, because they feel they are totally separated from the mainland, and possess neither the means nor the desire to cross over to it. They are in many respects a race by themselves, and their attachment to their little homes of rock is such that one of their severest punishments for offenders is to transport them to Ireland. Such an island is Raghlin, or Rathlin, six miles distant from the north-west of Antrim, but might be six hundred miles, judging by the slight intercourse the handful of inhabitants has with the larger world. Another such island is Tory, ten miles from the Donegal coast, where up to a few years ago the dwellers were unacquainted with any other law than that of the Brehon code. A visitor in 1834 found them choosing their own judge, and yielding ready obedience to mandates “issued from a throne of turf.” In this case, and in the case of the Cape Clear islanders, it was found that the threat of banishment to the mainland was severe enough to prevent serious crime. These feelings probably have been modified in more recent times, yet the intensity of the attachment of islanders to their native rock is one of the ineradicable characteristics which account for the sturdy independence manifested in their laws and customs. Their little homes are miniature worlds which they prefer to govern themselves in their own way. We may take the Scillies as a favourable example, where the natives cling to the system of civil government by twelve principal inhabitants forming a Court presided over by a military officer. The Court is held every month, and it has jurisdiction in civil suits and minor causes. The Sheriff for Cornwall has, və ya, at all events, var idi, no jurisdiction in the islands, though persons prosecuted for felonies (which are extremely rare) have to be relegated to the Assizes at Launceston.

Kiçik Şotland adalarında patriarxal sistem həmişə çox sübut edilmişdir, hansı, çox hissəsi üçün, feodal başçılarının övladlarının mülkləridir. Dr. Conson bu faktı Şimaldakı məşhur səyahəti münasibətilə elan etdi:-"Kiçik adaların çoxunda hüquq işçiləri yoxdur.

bir dəfə soruşdum, cinayət törədilməlidirsə, cinayətkar hansı orqanla tutula bilər, və dedilər ki, laird öz hüququnu həyata keçirəcək; indi qəsb etməli olduğu hüququ, lakin bunu sadəcə zərurət sübut etməlidir, və buna görə də, hüquqi proses əldə edilə bilmədiyi zaman bəzi mülkiyyətçilər tərəfindən hələ də aşağı dərəcədə həyata keçirilir.” Amma sistemin necə işlədiyini müşahidə etdikdən sonra, Dr. Johnson sərbəst şəkildə etiraf etdi ki, lairdlər bilik və fəzilət adamları idi, yerli məhkəmənin rahatlığı böyük idi. Bəzi adaların uzaqlığı və digərlərinə çıxışın çətinliyi səbəbindən, onları ümumi qanuna tabe etmək çətin ki, mümkün idi, və biz görürük ki, bəzi hallarda sahiblərə lord-leytenant komissiyası tərəfindən hakim kimi fəaliyyət göstərməyə icazə verilirdi.. Köhnə lairlərdən bəziləri qanunlarını tətbiq etmək üçün çox təsirli, lakin ədalətsiz üsula sahib idilər. Lord Seaforth, Kintailin yüksək rəisi, Lyuis adasında hökm sürən çox iyrənc qadın qulluğu adətini ləğv etmək istəyirdi.. Kişilər qadınlardan mal-qara kimi istifadə etməli idilər, onları atlar kimi qayıq çəkməyə məcbur edir, və, Digər şeylər arasında, kişiləri arxalarında dərin və təhlükəli keçidlərdən keçirmək. Bu təcrübə Lord Seafortu çox iyrəndirdi, kim tapdı, lakin, that it was one particularly hard to check. He arrived one day on horseback at a stream which a peasant was contentedly crossing, mounted on a woman’s shoulders. When the middle of the stream was reached, the laird urged his horse forward, and came up with the couple, when by vigorously laying his whip about the back of the man, he compelled him to dismount, and wade as best he could to the opposite bank. This practical indication of the laird’s wishes aided considerably in producing a change.

The Scotch islanders are a law-abiding people, and patriarchal government sufficed. It was recorded of the inhabitants of Skye that, during a period of unusual distress and semi-starvation, not a single sheep was stolen. Bu adada ədəb-ərkan hissi o qədər güclüdür ki, bütün bir ailənin uzaqlaşdığı bilinir, ayrı-ayrı cinayətkarın onlara gətirdiyi rüsvayçılığa dözə bilmir. Orkney və Shetland vaxtilə ayrı bir krallığın bütün xüsusiyyətlərinə sahib idi, başqa heç bir ölkənin qanunları onlara tətbiq edilmir. Lairdin haqqını mübahisə edəcək heç kim yox idi, və hüquqi idarə tamamilə onun əlində idi, adaların yepiskop idarəçiliyinə verildiyi dövr istisna olmaqla. Qeyd etmək lazımdır ki, idarə edən yepiskopların ən məşhuru, Robert Reid (tempus 1540), Edinburqdakı İclas Məhkəməsinin sədrinin yüksək vəzifəsini də doldurdu, və onun və onun xələflərinin gözə çarpan mülayimlik və ədalətlə hökm sürdükləri deyilir.

We may now turn to one or two English islands before devoting attention to the most important examples of all—those supplied by the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. The Isle of Wight is only regarded as “separate” from Hampshire for one legal purpose, so far as I have been able to ascertain. It is part of the “county of Southampton” for all purposes except the land-tax payment: for this it has a separate liability. But the land-tax divisions are the most irregular, and the least uniform of any legal divisions in the country, and it is therefore not surprising that the Isle of Wight should in this respect be subject to peculiar usage. Purbek, İngiltərədəki "adalar" dan biridir və indi onların təyinatı üçün daha çox ənənədən asılıdır, coğrafi tərifə təbii uyğunluqdan daha çox. Maraqlısı odur ki, bu “adalar” – məsələn, Purbek adası, Ely adası, Qlastonberi adası, və Meare adası - demək olar ki, hamısının öz sərhədləri daxilində yaşayan kiçik icmalar üçün müəyyən yaxşı qurulmuş və tanınmış qanunları var.. Purbekin karxanaçıları özlərini ayrı bir irq hesab edirlər, və onların gildiyası ən yaxın və ən sərt xarakterlərdən biridir. Onların hörməti yalnız malikanənin ağasına ödənilir, və "Mərblər" Kral Edvarddan xüsusi nizamnamə aldıqlarını iddia edirlər. Shrove çərşənbə axşamı onlar zabitlərini seçirlər, və sərhədlərin ətrafında bir futbol topu vuraraq münasibətilə qeyd edin. Bu hallarda müşahidə edilən qədim adətlərdən biri malikanənin ağasına bir funt bibər aparmaqdır, "yol hüququ" ilə bağlı ona bir etiraf kimi. Nisbətən yaxın dövrlərə qədər adanın hökuməti patriarxal xarakter daşıyırdı. Qlastonberi adasında kiçik işlərə baxılması üçün "On iki dəri evi" var idi., və ənənə xəbər verir ki, məşhur Avaloniya adasında təhqir edənlərin immurlanması üçün qeyri-adi böyük zindanlar hazırlanıb..

İnsan adası, Norveç krallarına tabe olduqda, tabeliyində olan feodator krallığı idi. Daha sonra ingilis krallarının hakimiyyəti altına keçdi, Con və Henri III., but passed afterwards to the Scotch. Henry IV. eventually claimed the little isle, and disposed of it to the Earl of Northumberland, but upon this famous nobleman’s attainder it went to Sir John de Stanley. Its government seemed destined to be unsettled, lakin, and though the title of king was renounced by the possessors of the land, they maintained supreme and sovereign authority as to legal process. In the Isle of Man no English writ could be served, and as a result it became infested with smugglers and outlaws. This was unsatisfactory, və, in 1765, the interest of the proprietor was purchased, in order that the island should be subject to the regulations of the British excise and customs.

According to Blackstone, than whom there could be no greater authority, the Isle of Man is “a distinct territory from England, and is not governed by our laws; neither doth an Act of Parliament extend to it unless it be particularly named therein.” It is consequently a convenient refuge for debtors and outlaws, öz dairəsi və prosedur köhnə üsulları cinayət xeyrinə daha çox prokurorlar və şikayətçiləri yardım üçün aşkar edilmişdir isə.

Yəqin ki, bu daha qabarıq qatil Cooper son halda daha təsvir heç vaxt, olan adam öldürmə azaldılır bir dəhşətli cinayət əldə dərəcədə Manx hüquq cumbrous və yumşaq proseslər fayda. qanunları tez-tez dəyişikliklər edilmişdir. Əvvəl 1417 onlar "Deemsters ürəklərində qədər kilidli idi,” but Sir John Stanley found that so much injustice was being done under the pretence of law, that he ordered a promulgation to be made. But “breast laws” continued to be administered for another two centuries, until Lord Strange, in 1636, commanded that the Deemsters should “set down in writing, and certify what these breast laws are.” In 1777, and also in 1813, the laws of the island were again amended, and every criminal was allowed three separate and distinct trials before different bodies. First the High Bailiff hears his case, then the Deemster and six jurymen, və, thirdly, if he has been committed for trial, he is brought before the Governor and the Deemsters. By the time the case gets to the final court it has usually been “whittled down” to the smallest possible proportions, and doubts have often been raised whether justice is not marred by misplaced and unwarranted lenity. Another strange practice is that the Manx advocates combine the parts of barrister and attorney. The law is hard upon debtors, who can be lodged as prisoners in Castle Rushen, if it is suspected that they are about to leave the island; but there are no County Courts. Digər tərəfdən, there are Courts of Law of almost bewildering variety—the Chancery Court, the Admiralty, the General Gaol Delivery, the Exchequer, the Ecclesiastical, the Common Law, the two Deemsters’ Courts for the north and south of the island, the Seneschal’s Court, the Consistorial, the Licensing, and the High Bailiff’s. Each sheading, or subdivision, has its own coroner or sheriff, who can appoint a “lockman” as his deputy; and each parish (there are seventeen) has its own captain and a “sumner,” whose duty in old times was to keep order in church and “beat all the doggs.” Manx law had, and perhaps to some extent still has, a similar reputation either for allowing criminals in the island to escape easily, or for permitting English criminals to remain unpunished; hence the old ribald verse which represents the Devil singing—

“That little spot I cannot spare,

For all my choicest friends are there.”

The Deemster’s oath is a curiosity in itself:—“I do swear that I will execute the laws of the isle justly betwixt party and party as indifferently as the herring’s backbone doth lie in the midst of the fish.” Formerly the elective House of Keys possessed judicial as well as legislative functions, but this power was taken from it by the Act of 1866. Laws are initiated in the Council and the Tynwald Court, which promulgates them, consists of the members of the Council, and the House of Keys, who unite for the occasion. Tynwald Day as described by Mr. Hall Caine is an interesting, historic, but not an impressive ceremony. A thousand years ago the Norsemen established a form of government on the island, və hər beş iyulda Manxman qanunların elan edilməsi üçün açıq havada parlamentinə malikdir. Ancaq bu, iş günü deyil, qala günüdür. “Könülsüz etiraf edirəm,” yazır cənab. Hall Caine, “proseslər belə idi, özlərində, uzun, yorucu, təsirsiz, formasız, təsirsiz, və qeyri-adi. Böyük Deemster, mehriban və hörmətli ser Vm. İçməli su, yeni qanunların adlarını ingilis dilində oxuyun. Sonra premyer başlıqların koroneri, Qlenfaba, eyni başlıqları manks dilində oxudu. Onları demək olar ki, heç kim eşitmirdi; demək olar ki, heç kim dinləmədi”.

Kanal adaları Normandiya Hersoqluğunun bir hissəsi idi, və onların qanunları əsasən “Le Grand Coustumier” kimi tanınan qədim kitabda qeyd olunan hersoq adətləridir. İngilis Parlamentinin aktları xüsusi qeyd edilmədiyi təqdirdə bu adalara şamil edilmir, and all causes are determined by their own courts and officers. In Mr. Ansted’s standard work on the Channel Islands (revised and edited by E. Toulmin Nicolle, 1893), a long chapter is devoted to the whole subject, and it is so complete and well expressed that I venture without much alteration of phraseology to summarise its leading points. Jersey and Guernsey have diverged greatly from each other in their legal customs, and it is also curious to find that each of the smaller islands possesses its own particular constitutions and courts. The rights and customs of the “States,” which are an outcome of the mediæval Royal Court, have constantly undergone modification and have been remodelled, but they retain many of the ancient characteristics. The Bailiff (Bailli), or chief magistrate, is the first civil officer in each island, and usually retains his office for life. He presides at the Royal Court, takes the opinions of the elected Jurats, and when their voices are equal has a casting vote both in civil and criminal cases. The Bailiff is not required either in Jersey or Guernsey to have had a legal education. He is appointed by the Crown, but has usually held some position at the island bar. Formerly the advocates practising in the court of Jersey were nominated by the Bailiff, and were limited to six in number. In 1860, lakin, the bar was thrown open to every British subject who had been ten years resident in the island, and who was qualified by reason of being a member of the English bar, having taken a law degree at a French University, and having passed an examination in the island. In Guernsey the advocates are also notaries, and frequently hold agencies. The judicial and legislative powers in Jersey are to some extent separate, but in Guernsey they are intimately associated—a fact which accounts for much of the difference in custom in the two islands.

The ancient Norman law contained in “Le Grand Coustumier” dates back to the thirteenth century, was badly revised in the time of Queen Elizabeth, and became the Code. Trial by jury was established in 1786, and the laws on the subject have undergone considerable change. There is a committing magistrate, and the trial takes place at the Criminal Assizes of which there are six in the year. The jury numbers twenty-four; if twenty agree, the verdict is taken; if less than twenty the prisoner is set free. Minor offences are referred to a court of Correctional Police presided over by a magistrate who is independent of the Royal Court. The same magistrate presides over the court for the recovery of small debts, and there is no appeal from his decision. Then there are subsidiary courts for various police purposes, while the Court of Héritage entertains suits regarding real estate. The arbitrary operation of these Courts may have very evil results, especially for strangers who are unlearned in the peculiarities of Jersey law. I find a striking example of this in a magazine of June 15th, 1861, in which a hard experience is detailed with comments which appear to be fully justified by the circumstances. The writer says:—

“Before leaving England I had had a serious quarrel with a former friend and medical attendant, and no long time elapsed after our arrival in the island, before this gentleman sent me in a bill of monstrous proportions—a true ‘compte d’apothecaire’ as the French express it. At that time I was quite ignorant of the singular constitution of Jersey law, and how it placed me in the power of any man who chose to sue me whether I owed him money or not. I wrote to the doctor, refusing to pay the full amount of his claim, and referring him to a solicitor in London. He was, lakin, better acquainted with the Jersey law than myself, as the result will show. Here, before proceeding with my story, I will enter into some explanation of the law of debtor and creditor as it exists in Jersey. This law enables the creditor to enforce his demands summarily, depriving the party sued of his liberty, and leaving him in gaol till the costs of his imprisonment have swelled the amount to be paid: and further, supposing the defendant ultimately gains his suit, and proves his non-liability, no damages for false imprisonment are obtainable. The law leaves him no remedy, for the plaintiff makes no affidavit; and a simple letter from England, requesting a Jersey advocate to enforce payment of a claim, is enough to cast the defendant at once into prison, prior to any judicial investigation into the merits of his case.

“Thus, in Jersey, every man (unless he be a landed proprietor) is at the mercy of every other man, both in the island and out of it. In short, one man can arrest another simply by drawing up an imaginary account on a common bit of paper, and handing it to the nearest lawyer, who will send his clerk with the sheriff’s man and imprison the unfortunate victim in default of immediate payment. What is worse still, an arrest can be carried into effect, by means of a simple letter sent through the post. The exception in favour of land-owners of course includes the owners of house property, an exception which mostly benefits Jersey-men, as few but natives possess property in the island. It is only a proprietor who must be sued before he can be imprisoned. Cersi qanunları adanın sakinləri tərəfindən məhkəməyə verilən yad adamların şəxsləri ilə məhdudlaşırsa, təsvir olunan ixtiyari şəkildə, belə bir təcrübənin ədaləti hələ də adanı tərk etmələrinə mane olmaq tələbi ilə müdafiə oluna bilər; lakin Cersi qanunu yadların əlində alətə çevrildikdə heç bir bəhanə tapmaq mümkün deyil, adanın yurisdiksiyasından kənarda yaşayan, və başqa yerdə yaranmış borcların ödənilməsi üçün istifadə edildikdə, və adanın heç bir sakininin maraqlanmadığı, və nə zaman (bəzən olduğu kimi) qəsb vasitəsi kimi istifadə olunur. Birinci halda bunu tələb etmək olar, ən azı, adanı qoruyur, bu kifayət qədər uyğun ola bilər, baxmayaraq ki, sistem sui-istifadəyə məruz qalır. İkincidə, the injustice and folly of the law is flagrant. By what right or reason ought the Jersey code, without previous inquiry, to deprive one man of his liberty at the demand of another, when both are strangers, and when the dispute relates to matters wholly beyond its pale, and in reference to which it has no means of obtaining information on oath? Yet such is the case, and thus the Jersey law is converted into a mere tool of iniquity and oppression. In speaking of this strange anomaly in Jersey law, I am not referring to bills of exchange, or to securities of any sort, but merely to simple debts, free from any acknowledgment or signature whatever. In any other Court, such claims would not be entertained for a moment. Şübhəsiz ki, qanun Cersi xalqı üçün kifayət qədər barbardır, nəticələri onun əhatə dairəsindən kənara çıxmadan. Amma, məsələlər hazırda olduğu kimi, iş belə dayanır: A və B birlikdə düşür. İndi B yaramazdır. Birlikdə məhkəməyə gedirlər, və B A-dan hüququndan daha çox tələb edir. İngiltərə məhkəmələri işin mahiyyəti üzrə qərar vermək üzrədir. Bu vaxt B öyrənir ki, A iş üçün qısa müddətə Cersiyə gedib, bəlkə də məhz bu məsələ ilə bağlıdır, bu cür, Məsələn, mühüm şahid axtarır. B nə edir? O, dərhal Cersi hüquqşünasına kiçik hesabını əlavə edən məktub göndərir, ona ödəniş tələb etməyi və ya dərhal A-nı bağlamağı tapşırdı. Vəkil tabe olur, əlbəttə; Fırtınalar - etirazlar - hamısı boş yerə. O, həbsdədir, and is told he may explain as much as he likes afterwards; Amma, in the meantime, must go to prison, və ya pay. At last poor A, whose liberty is important to him, wearied with the delays which it is the interest of the Jersey lawyers to raise in his suit for judgment, pays the demand into court (au greffe) to be adjudicated on—costs of law, costs of imprisonment and all. The latter item includes 10s. every time the prison door is opened to let him pass on his way to court—a journey he has too often to perform without much approach to a dénoûment, and whither he is obliged to go under escort like a criminal; and this process is repeated several times, without the cause even being called on for hearing. Worst of all, when A comes out, he has to decide upon the merits of the case. Meanwhile no remedy against B, üst, əlbəttə, being satisfied, withdraws his suit at home.”

Another seeming anomalous process may be cited. An appeal lies from some of the small Courts to the full Court, və ya Nombre Supérieur, but the jurats who sit in the Court of First Instance are not debarred from sitting in the Full Court when an appeal from their own judgment is being heard! All the proceedings are carried on in the French language, which is again extremely inconvenient for the English residents. The Bailiff comments on the evidence and on the arguments of the pleaders, collects the opinion of the jurats, and delivers judgment. In Guernsey the decisions are given in private. “Pleadings in these courts are very simple,” deyir cənab. Ansted. “The plaintiff must serve on the defendant a summons or declaration, setting forth the nature of his claim, and in some cases the reasons on which it is grounded are added. If not sufficiently definite the declaration is sent back by the Court for amendment. If the defendant means to plead any objections by way of demurrer or special plea, these are at once heard and disposed of. If the parties join issue on the merits of the case, the Court hears the parties, or their counsel, and decides. If the case be intricate the parties are sometimes sent before the Greffier—in Guernsey before one of the jurats,—who reports, condensing the matter in dispute, and presenting the points to the court for decision.” Trial by jury does not exist in Guernsey. The court at Alderney is subordinate to that of Guernsey. The jurisdiction in matters of correctional police is final where the offence can be punished by a month’s imprisonment or a fine not exceeding £5; otherwise it is referred to Guernsey for trial. The Court of Sark, which has undergone many strange vicissitudes since its institution in 1579, consists of the seneschal, or judge, the prévôt and the greffier, all appointed by the feudal lord, or seigneur. The seneschal is an absolute authority in small cases, but his right of punishment is limited to the narrow bounds of inflicting a fine of about four shillings, and of sentencing to three days’ imprisonment. All cases demanding severer treatment are relegated to the Guernsey Courts. Enough has been said to show that Mr. Ansted was justified in declaring that though the islanders were unfitted by their habits and education for any radical change in their peculiar institutions, yet “the practice of the law courts both in Jersey and Guernsey has long been felt to be in many cases cumbrous, not to say objectionable. Həqiqətən, where so much that is personal interferes in the administration of justice, and where personal and family influence cannot but be felt, it is not astonishing that reasonable complaints are sometimes heard.” Three times during the present century Royal Commissions have enquired into Jersey law, but their recommendations have been systematically ignored. No remedies have been carried out, and the islanders cling with extraordinary pertinacity to customs which are notoriously abused and to priveleges which are opposed to fair-dealing. The Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are standing evidence of the danger incurred by such independence of legal authority as they have hitherto been permitted to enjoy.

George Neilson tərəfindən.

Düşünmək olar ki, bir insanın ölümü onun sonunu qoydu, və onun adi cəsədinin layiqli şəkildə dəfn olunmaqdan başqa heç bir hüququ və vəzifəsi olmadığını. Orta əsrlərin başqa fikirləri də var idi. Ölənlərin hələ də statusu və vəzifələri var idi. Qitə qanunları dul qadının ərinin cəsədinin açarlarını qoyduğu imtina aktlarını tanıyırdı., ya da məzarının ucu ilə məzarını döydü. Öldürülən şəxsin cəsədi, və ya, bu sadəcə onun əli ola bilər, intiqam tələb etmək üçün hakim qarşısına çıxarıla bilər. İngilis XIII əsr qanununa görə daşınmaz əmlaka qanuni sahibliyin kişidə qalacağı düşünülürdü, ölənə qədər deyil, lakin onun cəsədi dəfn üçün çıxarılana qədər. Ölülər çox güclü şahid ola bilər, bier-sağ sınağı ilə göstərildiyi kimi, qatilin toxunmasının qurbanın yaralarının yenidən qanamasına səbəb olacağı inancına əsaslanan təcrübə. Beləliklə, lazım olduqda şahid və ya prokuror kimi çıxış etmək üçün müxtəlif vəsiqələrə malikdir, ölülərin də müttəhim kimi tapılması təəccüblü deyil.

İngilis tarixi Caen monastırında baş verən qəribə mənzərəni xatırlayır 1087, Fateh Uilyam orada ölü uzananda, və onun dəfn mərasimləri qəribə bir müraciətlə kəsildi. Asselin, Arturun oğlu, yüksək səslə onun olduğunu iddia etdi, nə satılır, nə də verilir, kilsənin yerləşdiyi torpaq, və, dəfn etməyi qadağan edir, o, ölülərə müraciət edərək onu ədalətə qovuşdurmağa çağırdı. Birdən çox köhnə İngilis şeiri süjetini qədim kanon qanunu ətrafında çevirdi, borca ​​görə dəfn gecikdirilə bilər. Ölənləri həbs etmək mümkün idi: sonra qanunu ləğv etdi, "Çünki ölüm hər şeyi həll etdi." Lakin birdən çox məcəllədə ölüm dövlətə xəyanətin nəticələrinə görə məsuliyyəti aradan qaldırmadı.

Şotlandiyada, ildə 1320, Skonun "qara parlamentində", bir neçə şotland kral Robertə qarşı sui-qəsddə günahlandırıldı

Bruce. Onların əksəriyyəti çəkilib, asıldı, və başını kəsdi. Lakin dövrün bir Şotland tarixçisi bizə Roger of Mowbray deyir, təqsirləndirilənlərdən biridir, mühakimə olunmazdan əvvəl vəfat etmişdir, “Onun cəsədi həmin yerə aparılıb, sui-qəsddə təqsirli bilinib, və atlar tərəfindən çəkilməyə məhkum edildi, darağacında asılıb, və başını kəsdilər”. Cəzanın cismani hissəsinin yerinə yetirilməsinə icazə verməməsi Brusun şərəfinədir, nizamnamədə çoxlu qeydlər olsa da[24] satqınların torpaqlarını qaçırmalarının başqalarının sədaqətini mükafatlandırmaq üçün xidmət etdiyini göstərmək. Onun cəsədi sui-qəsddə mühakimə olundu! Bu unikal prosedur Şotlandiya praktikasına necə daxil oldu??

İngiltərədə, XIV əsrin sonlarına doğru, Baxmayaraq ki, qaçqınlara Şotlandiyadakından az diqqətlə baxılırdı - və bəzən kişilərin məhkum edilmədən öldüyü hallarda,— görünür ki, əldə edənin məqsədi ölüləri bara çağırmaq məqsədəuyğun olmadan həyata keçirilmişdir. Ölü, lakin, məhkum edilmişdi. Robert Plesynqtonun vəziyyətində, Məsələn, in 1397, Parlamentin hökmü dövlətə xəyanətdə açıq şəkildə ittiham edildi, "buna baxmayaraq öldüyünü söylədi Robert.” In 1400, John, Solsberi qrafı, Lord Morley tərəfindən xəyanətdə ittiham edildi, duelə təyin olunan gündən əvvəl öldürüldü. Məhkəmə onu nəinki satqın kimi tanıdı, lakin Roma qanunu tərəfindən irəli sürülən əsaslarla onun qarantiyalarını ittihamçısına xərclədi - dedi ki, 100 sn gözəl qonorar da daxil olmaqla xərclər. Vəkil Adəm Usk üçün on iki yard qırmızı parça.

Bütün xüsusiyyətlərdə, bəlkə də, cəsədin məhkəmədə faktiki iştirakı istisna olmaqla, Roma hüququnda Şotlandiya təcrübəsi üçün order tapıla bilər. “Əlahəzrət,” və ya dövlətə xəyanət, cinayətə görə məsuliyyətin cinayətkarın nəfəsi ilə başa çatması ilə bağlı böyük humanist ümumi qaydadan istisna təşkil etdi. Lex Julia altında ölüm “əlahəzrət” ittihamı qarşısında müdafiə olunmurdu;” ölən adamın adına xəyanət damğası vurmaq üçün proses qaldırıla bilər; qohumları inkar edib müdafiə etsəydilər; lakin onu təmizləyə bilməsələr, malları müsadirə olundu və yaddaşı lənətləndi. Roma salnaməsində təqsirləndirilən şəxs məzarda olduqdan sonra verilən bu cür ölüm hökmünün ən azı bir nümunəsi var.. Həm də onun əhatə dairəsi tamamilə dövlətə xəyanətlə məhdudlaşmırdı. Kilsənin dindar məqsədlər üçün barbar siyasətini mənimsəmək üçün sakit bir yolu var idi. İmperator Teodosius dedi ki, bidət üçün inkvizisiyanın özü ölümə qədər uzanmalıdır; və əzəmət cinayətində olduğu kimi, belə ki, bidət hallarında, ölülərin xatirəsini ittiham etmək halal olmalıdır. Papalar bu bənzətməni dəstəklədilər, çünki bidətçilərin malları var idi, bəzən itirməyə dəyərdi. Bununla belə, mənəvi hakimiyyət daha çox an idi. Kilsə ölümdən sonra da bağlamaq və boşaltmaq gücünü iddia edirdi, və 12-ci əsrdə yaşamış bir uels yepiskopu, xaricdən ölmüş bir kralın cəsədini qamçılamaq üçün onu daşıyarkən tək dayanmadı.. Eyni prinsip əsasında bidət hökmündən əvvəl ölmüş ölü bidətçilər yandırılırdı.

Bu, Roma hüquqşünaslığının yaxından təqibi idi, ilə, ola bilsin macəra, bəziləri Kilsənin qanunu və praktikasından işıq əlavə etdi, ki, fransızlar özlərinin ixtira etdiklərini kadavra prosesi, ölən bir xainin xatirəsinə hücum edildi. Onun xüsusi tətbiqi ilahi və insan kimi təsvir edilən ləzzətə aid idi, birincisi, Allaha və dinə qarşı təhqirləri əhatə edən elastik termindir. Bu sonuncu kateqoriyaya müttəfiqdir, tam ondan olmasa da, intiharın ölümcül günahı idi. Özünü öldürmək orta çağ düşüncəsi üçün o qədər iyrənc idi ki, təkcə daha günahkar sayılmırdı., lakin daha biabırçı cəzaya çağırmaq, demək olar ki, hər hansı digər cinayətlə müqayisədə. Beləliklə, xain və özünü öldürən eyni nifrət içində birləşdirilir, qanun həm də eyni qəribə post-mortem prosesi ilə assailed, və (Volterin ilk lağ edənlərdən biri olduğu əsaslandırma üsulları ilə) canlarını məhvə təslim etdilər, onların xatirələri rüsvayçılıqdır, və bədənlərini gibbete. İntihara münasibət onun simvolik utanc zərifliyi ilə özünəməxsus idi. Bədən idi, adət hüququ ilə (misal üçün, Beaumont), gibbetə mümkün qədər amansızcasına çəkilmək, özünü göstərmək başqalarına təcrübə. Onun yatdığı evin elə qapısı da sökülməli idi, çünki ölü adam onun üstündən keçməyə layiq deyildi. Çubuq, payla köçürmə, Qitədə yaşayanların cəzası kimi kifayət qədər tanınsa da, həm orada, həm də İngiltərədə oldu, intiharın xüsusi cəzası. Yenə də kadavra prosesi ingilis hüququnda heç bir əsası yox idi, və artıq daxil olmasına baxmayaraq 1320 Şotlandiyada qəbul edilib, biz bunun tamamilə xoş qarşılanmadığını düşünməyə əsas tapacağıq.

Məhkəmədən sonra 1320 işarə etməzdən əvvəl, Şotlandiyadakı qeydlər iki əsrdən çoxdur ki, səssizdir, və bu qədər deyil 1540 ki, proses yenidən eşidilir. Həmin il Robert Leslinin varisləri onun adını və yaddaşını dinləmək üçün parlament məhkəməsinə çağırıldılar.,” müəyyən məqamlara və ləyaqətsizlik cinayətlərinə görə, torpaqları və malları padşahın əlindən alındı. Hüquqi orqanlar, on dördüncü əsr nümunəsini açıq-aydın unutmuşdur, Leslie'nin növünün ilki olaraq qəbul edilməsi səhvində bir-birini izləyin. Prosedurun qanuniliyi o zaman sual altında idi. Həqiqətən, uğultu o qədər güclü idi ki, onu susdurmaq üçün keçən aktda hələ də eşidilir. “Bu mırıltıdır,” deyilir qanunda, “Sumondiləri qaldırmaq və deide olan bir şəxsə başqa bir hərəkəti köçürmək bir yenilikdir., halbuki ümumi qanun samini birbaşa təmin edir.” Bu səbəbdən parlamentin üç mülkü lordun vəkillik təklifi üzərinə, yekdilliklə “hamısı bir səslə, lakin fərqlilik və ya uyğunsuzluq,” səbəbi ədalətli və ümumi qanuna uyğun idi. Növbəti ilin başqa bir işində ittiham və hökm Parlamentin Aktlarına daxil edildi. Dul arvadı və mərhum Ceyms Kolvillin varisi “sözügedən mərhum Ceymsin olduğunu görmək və eşitmək üçün çağırıldı., yaşayarkən alçaqlıq cinayəti törətmişdi”. Parlamentin tribunal kimi azad edilməsi, öz şərtlərinə görə, ölülərə qarşı faktiki bir hökm idi - mərhum Ceymsin "hes lesemajeste cinayətinin panisinə düşməsi" və buna görə də məhkəmənin "söylənilən umquhile Ceymsin xatirəsinin silinməsinə səbəb olduğu".,” və onun əmlakı tacına qədər müsadirə edildi. Qanuna əsaslanan proseduru yekdilliklə qəbul edən parlament, təhlükəli olduğunu müəyyən etdi. Onun əhatə dairəsini məhdudlaşdırmaq lazım idi. In 1542, parlamentin qeydiyyatındadır[44] ki, “lordis deyilən hərəkətdir [yəni., of 1540], bu səltənətin bütün barionlarına qarşı ümumi və qərəzsizdir." Bu heç vaxt olmazdı:- baronlara xələl gətirən hərəkət! Beləliklə, bu, qanuna çevrildi 1542, yalnız ağır xəyanət hallarına şamil edilməlidir, cinayətkarın həyatı boyu ictimai və bədnam, və gələcək üçün təqib xainin ölümündən sonra beş il ərzində qaldırılmalıdır. Bu, ağlabatan bir məhdudiyyət idi, həmişə müşahidə olunmur.

Məryəm və VI Yaqubun hakimiyyəti dövründə. bu tək prosesə müraciət edildiyi bir sıra sınaqlar baş verdi, və bəzilərində, hamısı olmasa, onlardan ölülərin cəsədi barda göründü. Bəzən bu məqsədlə balzamlanırdı. Bu, sərhəd məcəlləsinin bir hissəsi idi, İngiltərə və Şotlandiyanın yürüşlərində geniş yayılmışdır, that an accused should, although dead, be brought to the place of judgment in person. In 1249, the marchmen of both realms had declared the law in that sense. They said that, in any plea touching life and limb, if the defendant died the body of him should be carried to the march on the day and to the place fixed between the parties, because—concludes this remarkable provision —“no man can excuse himself by death.” And in the end of the sixteenth century the borderers had not forgotten the tradition their forefathers had inherited in the thirteenth, for in 1597, when Scotsmen and Englishmen were in fulfilment of their treaty obligations presenting their promised pledges, the custom was scrupulously observed on the English side. All were there,—all, baxmayaraq ki, hamısı artıq olmayan birini ehtiva edir. “Baxmayaraq ki, bir nəfər ölüb, hələ də bu yerə gətirilib təqdim edilib”. Görünür, onlar sərhədlərə inanırdılar, Ser Robert Cary nədənsə onu “kristalsiz cintry” adlandırırdı,” insanın öldüyünü ən yaxşı şəkildə şəxsən iştirak etməklə sübut edə biləcəyini.

Vətənə xəyanətə görə məhkəmələrdə bu prinsip bəzi hallarda qəribə ifrata sövq edildi. Yəqin ki, bunun altında yatan bir səbəb var, çox gec bir tarixdə, müsadirənin effektiv olması üçün heç bir rəsmiliyin əskik olmamasına əmin olmaq idi. Ancaq inanmaq lazım olan əsas səbəb onun ənənəvi ayin olmasıdır. Məhkəmədə 1600, Kralın həyatına sui-qəsddə şübhəli bilinən Qouri Qrafı və qardaşı, the privy council on the preamble that it was necessary to have their corpses kept and preserved unburied, issued an act to that effect, and the treasurer’s accounts contain an entry “for transporting of the corpis of Gowrie and his brother.” Their bodies were accordingly produced at the trial, and the sentence which pronounced them guilty of treason and lesemajesty during their lifetime, declared their name, memory, and dignity extinguished, and ordained that “the dead bodeis of the saidis Treatouris,” should be hanged, quartered, and gibbetted. Their “twa hedis,” a grim diarist tells, were set upon the tolbooth, “thair to stand quhill the wind blaw thame away.”

The last case in the annals, bu üsyankar Şotlandiya "praktiki" tətbiq olundu, -də baş verib 1609. Robert Loqan, Restalrig, Kral Ceymsə qarşı iddia edilən Qouri sui-qəsdində iştirak etdiyi açıqlananda məzarında təxminən üç il idi.. Yaddaşını qadağan etmək və əmlakını qaçırmaq üçün dərhal bir proses aparıldı. Çünki ölüm bəhanə deyildi, dəfn də olmadı; və məhkəmədə təqdim edilmək üçün sümüklərin eksqumasiya edilməsinin dəhşətli forması aradan qaldırıldı. Bu, açıq-aşkar aktda nəzərdə tutulmuş istisnalar çərçivəsində baş vermişdi 1542, çünki bu adam “qeyri-adi” xain deyildi, sədaqət naminə ölmüşdü: lakin Tac mühakimə olunmağa can atırdı. Gowrie sui-qəsdi ilə bağlı çoxlu inamsızlıq hökm sürürdü. İndi irəli sürülən dəlillər hər halda səthdə idi, baxmayaraq, bəlkə, bir çox tənqidçilər hələ də düşündüyü kimi, yalnız səthdə,- şərti və güclü. Buna görə də ittiham tərəfi ciddi şəkildə sıxışdırıldı, və bəzi hakimlərin istəksizliyi aradan qaldırılır. Bu ölümdən sonrakı məhkəmələrdə zarafatcıl hüquqşünas-şərhçi, bir xainin sümüklərinin nə müdafiə edə bildiyini qeyd etdi, nə də şahidləri çarpaz sorğu-sual etmək. Lakin XVII əsrin əvvəllərində onlar məhkəmənin rəğbətini ittihamın əleyhinə çevirə bildilər, göründüyü kimi, Loqanın işində etdilər. Sübutlar, lakin, hədsiz görünürdü, və müsadirə skamyadan - skamyadan fərqli bir səs olmadan aparıldı, çünki belə idi, bütün Şotlandların xəyanət məhkəmələri o zaman olduğu kimi, yalnız hakimlər tərəfindən məhkəmə prosesi, hakim və münsiflər heyəti tərəfindən deyil. Logan’s memory was declared extinct and abolished, and his possessions forfeited. The judgment, lakin, wreaked no vengeance on the exhumed remains. Humanity was asserting itself even in the trial of the dead, and that institution itself was doomed. Although in disuse ever after, it did not disappear from the theory of law until 1708, when the act 7 Anne, chapter 21, prescribing jury-trial for treason, assimilated the Scots law on the subject to that of England, and thus brought to an unregretted end one of the most gruesome of legal traditions.

By Sidney W. Clarke.

THAT the world has become more merciful as it has grown older, is a truism at once apparent to anyone who gives even a cursory glance at any of the numerous works dealing with the criminal laws of the olden time. Still the approach to the most excellent quality has been regretably and painfully slow, və şübhəsiz ki, on doqquzuncu əsrin lovğalanan maarifçiliyinə ləkədir, rəsm və dörddəbirliliyin dəhşətli və intiqamverici cəzası nizamnamə kitabımızdan yoxa çıxana qədər əsrin mövcudluğunun təxminən dörddə üçünü keçdiyini. Əksər ştatlarda ilkin qanunlar qana susamış və qorxulu xarakter daşıyırdı, amma iyulun dördüncü gününə kimi nə bəhanə gətirmək olar, Lütf ilində 1870, dövlətə xəyanət cinayətinə görə qanunla müəyyən edilmiş cəza, bədbəxt cinayətkar edam yerinə əngəllə çəkilməli idi, orada ölənə qədər boynundan asılacaq; başı bədənindən ayrılsın; onun bədəni dörd dördə bölünsün; and that his head and quarters be at the disposal of the Crown. In Blackstone’s time the sentence was still more savage, və ya, as the great Commentator puts it, “very solemn and terrible.” It was that the offender be drawn to the gallows, and not be carried or walk; “though usually,” says Blackstone, “by connivance, at length ripened by humanity into law, a sledge or hurdle was allowed to preserve the offender from the extreme torment of being dragged on the ground or pavement;” that he be hanged by the neck and then cut down alive; that his entrails be taken out, and burned before his eyes, while he was still alive; that his head be cut off, his body be divided into four parts, and his head and quarters be at the King’s disposal. What our tender-hearted monarchs did with the quivering pieces of flesh let the stones of Temple Bar, the City Gates, and the Tower bear witness. Here are a couple of extracts from that perennial fountain of information, the diary of Mr. Samuel Pepys. Under date of October 13th, 1660, he writes, “I went out to Charing Cross to see Major-General Harrison,” one of the regicides, “hanged, drawn, and quartered, which was done there, he looking as cheerful as any man could do in that condition.” Note the grim humour of the words in italics. “He was presently cut down, and his head and heart shown to the people, at which there was great shouts of joy.” Again, on October 20th, in the same year:—“This afternoon going through London and calling at Crowe’s, the upholsterer’s, in St. Bartholomew’s, I saw the limbs of some of our new traytors set upon Aldersgate, which was a sad sight to see; and a bloody week this and the last have been, there being ten hanged, drawn, and quartered.”

It will be observed that the masculine gender is used in the foregoing sentences for high treason; üçün, if the offender was a woman, the law with a delicacy (!) one would hardly have expected, recognised that “the decency due to the sex forbids the exposing and publicly mutilating their bodies;” so a woman was simply to be drawn to the gallows, and there burned alive. And these punishments for treason Sir Edward Coke attempted to justify on Scriptural grounds, adding “it is punishment undoubtedly just, for our liege lord the King is lord of every one of our members, and they have severally conspired against him, and should each one suffer.” Evidently justice has not always spelt humanity.

Another of the horrible punishments decreed by English law was that of boiling to death, which in the reign of Henry VIII. was inflicted for poisoning, and recalls the most cruel tortures of China and the Orient, where slicing to death and impalement alive are or were common forms of punishment. The awful fate of being boiled alive was specially devised for the benefit of John Roose, a cook, who had been convicted of throwing poison into a pot of broth intended for the family of the Bishop of Rochester and for the poor of the Parish; in 1542, Margaret Davey suffered the same lingering death at Smithfield. So fearful were our ancestors of poison, that in Scotland, in 1601, Thomas Bellie, a burgess of Brechin, and his son were banished for life by the High Court of Justiciary, for the heinous offence of poisoning a couple of troublesome hens belonging to a neighbour. Even the laws of Draco, said on account of their severity to have been written not in ink but in blood, can scarcely compete with these examples of British barbarity. Among the Romans strangulation, precipitation from a rocky height (a mode of carrying out the death sentence still found amongst savage tribes), and lashing to death were forms of punishment. Soldiers guilty of military offences had to run the gauntlet. Upon a given signal all the soldiers of the legion to which the offender belonged fell upon him with sticks and stones, and generally killed him on the spot. Əgər, lakin, he succeeded in making his escape, he was thenceforth an exile from his native country. Offending slaves were first scourged and then crucified. They were compelled to carry the cross to the place of execution, and after being suspended were left to perish by slow degrees. Crucifixion was abolished throughout the Roman Empire by Constantine, out of reverence to the sacred symbol. Other cruel punishments were burning alive, exposure to wild animals, and condemnation to fight as gladiators in the arena for the amusement of the citizens. The second of these modes of death, for death was the invariable result, was the one usually meted out to the early Christians—“If the Tiber overflows its banks; if there be a famine or plague; if there be a cold, a dry, or a scorching season; if any public calamity overtakes us; the universal cry of the people is—“To the lion with the Christians Christiani ad leonem!”

Parricide was punished in a strange manner. The criminal, after being scourged, was tied or sewed up in a leather bag, with a dog, a cock, a viper, and an ape to keep him company, and so cast into the sea. The Egyptians punished the same offence by sticking the prisoner all over with pointed reeds, and then throwing him upon a fire of burning thorns, where he lay till he was consumed.

With most nations the Lex talionis, or punishment of retaliation—an eye for an eye, a limb for a limb—has found a place in the penal system. It was not, doğrudan da, always carried out to its logical conclusion, but rather became the subject of many subtle distinctions. Among the Athenians, Solon decreed that whoever put out the eye of a one-eyed person should for so doing lose both his own. But what, soruşuldu, should be done where a one-eyed man happened to put out one of his neighbour’s eyes? Should he lose his only eye by way of retaliation? Beləki, he would then be quite blind, and would so suffer a greater injury than he had caused. The law of the Jews and Egyptians compelled anyone, who without lawful excuse was found with a deadly poison in his possession, to himself swallow the poison. An instance of a kind of lex talionis in our own country is found in the reign of Edward I., when incendiaries were burnt to death. Another example is that, from the reign of Henry VIII. to that of George IV., to strike a blow and draw blood within the precincts of the King’s palace, entailed on the offender the loss of his right hand. Here are some of the regulations prescribed by the statute 33 Henri VIII., chapter 12, for the infliction of the punishment:—

“viii. And for the further declaration of the solemn and due circumstance of the execution appertaining and of long time used and accustomed, to and for such malicious strikings, by reason whereof blood is, hath been, or hereafter shall be shed against the King’s peace. It is therefore enacted by the authority aforesaid, that the Sergeant or Chief Surgeon for the time being, or his deputy of the King’s household, his heirs and successors, shall be ready at the time and place of execution, as shall be appointed as is aforesaid, to sear the stump when the hand is stricken off.

“ix. And the Sergeant of the Pantry shall be also then and there ready to give bread to the party that shall have his hand so stricken off.

“x. And the Sergeant of the Cellar shall also be then and there ready with a pot of red wine to give the same party drink after his hand is so stricken off and the stump seared.

“xi. And the Sergeant of the Ewry shall also be then and there ready with cloths sufficient for the Surgeon to occupy about the same execution.

“xii. And the Yeoman of the Chandry shall also be then and there, and have in readiness seared cloths sufficient for the Surgeon to occupy about the same execution.

“xiii. And the Master Cook shall be also then and there ready, and shall bring with him a dressing-knife, and shall deliver the same knife at the place of execution to the Sergeant of the Larder, who shall be also then and there ready, and hold upright the dressing-knife till execution be done.

“xiv. And the Sergeant of the Poultry shall be also then and there ready with a cock in his hand, ready for the Surgeon to wrap about the same stump, when the hand shall be so stricken off.

“xv. And the Yeoman of the Scullery to be also then and there ready, and prepare and make at the place of execution a fire of coals, and there to make ready searing-irons against the said Surgeon or his deputy shall occupy the same.

“xvi. And the Sergeant or Chief Ferror shall be also then and there ready, and bring with him the searing-irons, and deliver the same to the same Sergeant or Chief Surgeon or to his deputy when they be hot.

“xvii. And the Groom of the Salcery shall be also then and there ready with vinegar and cold water, and give attendance upon the said Surgeon or his deputy until the same execution be done. “xviii. And the Sergeant of the Woodyard shall bring to the said place of execution a block, with a betil, a staple, and cords to bind the said hand upon the block while execution is in doing.”

In addition to losing his hand, the unfortunate offender was imprisoned for life. It was not until 1829 that this punishment was abolished, after having been in existence for a period of 287 illər.

A curious mode of punishment, intended to make its victim the object of popular ridicule, was in vogue in the ancient German Empire, where persons who endeavoured to create tumults and to disturb the public tranquility were condemned to carry a dog upon their shoulders from one large town to another.

The penal laws of France were every wit as inhuman as our own—burning alive, breaking on the wheel, hanging, beheading, and quartering were common forms of punishment. Awful atrocities were committed on living victims, such as tearing off the flesh with red-hot pincers, pouring molten lead and brimstone into the wounds, and cutting out the tongue. The following is the sentence passed upon Ravaillac, the assassin of Henry IV., in 1610:—He was first to be privily tortured and then carried to the place of execution. There the flesh was to be torn with red-hot pincers from his breasts, his arms and thighs, and the calves of his legs; his right hand, holding the knife wherewith he committed his crime, was to be scorched and burned with flaming brimstone; on the places where the flesh had been torn off a mixture of melted lead, boiling oil, scalding pitch, wax, and brimstone was to be poured; after this he was to be torn in pieces by four horses, and his limbs and body burned to ashes and dispersed in the air. His goods and chattels were confiscated; the house in which he was born was pulled down; his father and mother were banished, and his other relatives commanded to change the name of Ravaillac for some other. This sentence was not, surely, a vindication of outraged justice, but rather a purile and barbarous legal revenge.

To return to the laws of our own country. Mutilation of one sort or another was long a favourite mode of punishment; pulling out the tongue for slander, cutting off the nose for adultery, emasculation for counterfeiting money, və sair. In Foxe’s “Book of Martyrs” there is an account of a miracle which was worked on the person of a mutilated criminal. A Bedfordshire man was convicted of theft, and for his crime his eyes were pulled out and other abominable mutilations were inflicted on him. The sufferer repaired to the shrine of St. Thomas at Canterbury, where after devout and steadfast prayer the parts he had lost were, so we are told, miraculously restored. Anyone who fought with weapons in a church had an ear cut off, or if he had already lost both his ears was branded in the cheek with the letter F.

By an Act passed in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, the punishment for forgery was that the offender should stand in the pillory and have his ears cut off by the common hangman, his nostrils slit up and seared, and then suffer imprisonment for life. In 1731 Joseph Cook, aged 70 illər, underwent this punishment, the mutilation taking place while he stood in the pillory at Charing Cross.

The Coventry Act (22-23 Charles II., chapter 1.) was passed in consequence of Sir John Coventry having been assaulted in the street and his nose slit, out of revenge as was supposed. It enacted that if any person should of malice, aforethought, and by lying in wait, cut out or disable the tongue, put out an eye, slit the nose, or cut off or disable any limb or member of any other person, with intent to maim or to disfigure him, such person, his councillors, aiders, and abettors, should be guilty of felony without benefit of clergy, which implied the punishment of death. This Act was not repealed until 1828, and resulted in at least one curious case. In 1772, one Coke and a labourer named Woodburn were indicted under the Act—Coke for hiring and abetting Woodburn, and Woodburn for the actual offence of slitting the nose of one Crispe, who was Coke’s brother-in-law. The intention of the accused was to murder Crispe, and they left him for dead, having terribly hacked and disfigured him with a hedge-bill, but he recovered. An attempt to murder was not then a felony, but under the Coventry Act to disfigure with an intent to disfigure was; and the accused were indicted for the latter offence. Coke, in the course of his defence, raised the point that the attack on Crispe was made with intent to murder him and not with intent to disfigure, buna görə də, he contended, the offence was not within the statute under which he was indicted. But the court held that if a man attacked another intending to murder him, with such an instrument as a hedge-bill, which could not but endanger a disfiguring of the victim, and in such attack happened not to kill but only to disfigure, he might be indicted for disfiguring. The jury found the prisoners guilty, və onlar məhkum edildi və lazımi qaydada edam edildi.

Ticarətin müdafiəsi ilə bağlı qanunlar bir çox qəddar cəzalar nəzərdə tuturdu. Beləliklə, Elizabetin hakimiyyəti dövründə, yun sənayesinin təşviqi üçün qəbul edilmiş qanunda diri qoyunların ölkədən çıxarılmasının cəzası malların müsadirəsi olmalıdır., bir il müddətinə azadlıqdan məhrum etmə, və ilin sonunda məhbusun sol əli ictimai bazarda kəsilməlidir, və orada ən ictimai yerdə mismarlanmış olun. İkinci cinayət ölümlə cəzalandırılırdı. Əsasnaməyə görə 21 James I. chapter 19, İflas edəcək qədər bədbəxt olan hər kəs iki saat ərzində bir qulağından mıxlanırdı, sonra qulağı kəsildi. Romalılar dövründə müflislə daha amansız davranırdılar, for at the option of his creditors he was either cut to pieces or sold to foreigners beyond the Tiber.

A longstanding disgrace to the intelligence and humanity of our countrymen was the fact that in former times burning alive was the inevitable fate of poor wretches convicted of witchcraft, the penal laws against which were not repeated until 1736.

So late as 1712, five so called witches were hung at Northampton, və içində 1716 xanım. Hicks, and her daughter, aged nine, were condemned to death at Huntingdon for selling their souls to the devil. Even children of tender years were not spared, but with their elders alike fell victims to our law’s barbarity; there are many recorded instances of children under ten years of age being executed. In Scotland the last execution for witchcraft took place in 1722.

Space will not permit any attempt to run through the whole gamut of legal iniquities; at most we can only attempt a very incomplete catalogue of the inhumanities at one time or another incident to our penal codes, and with a final horror we must bring this article to an end. The punishment with which we are now about to deal, that of pressing to death, peine forte et dure adlandırıldığı kimi, is perhaps the most noteable example of the former barbarity of our law, since it was inflicted before trial on innocent and guilty alike, who refused to plead “Guilty” or “Not Guilty” to an indictment for felony. What this punishment was, which was first instituted in 1406, can best be told by giving the form of the judgment of the court against the person who refused to plead:—That the prisoner shall be remanded to the place from whence he came, and put in some low, dark room, and that he shall lie without any litter or other thing under him, and without any manner of covering; that one arm shall be drawn to one quarter of the room with a cord and the other to another, and that his feet shall be used in the same manner; and that as many weights shall be laid upon him as he can bear, and more; that he shall have three morsels of barley bread a day, and that he shall have the water next the prison, so that it be not current; and that he shall not eat the same day on which he drinks, nor drink the same day on which he eats; and that he shall continue so till he die or answer.

Peine forte et dure was not abolished till 1772, and was frequently undergone by accused persons in order to preserve their estates from being forfeited to the Crown, which would have been the case if they had stood their trial and been found guilty. The year 1741 is probably the last date on which the punishment was inflicted. In 1721, two men, Thomas Cross and Thomas Spigot, were ordered to be pressed to death at the Old Bailey. Cross gave in on seeing the preparations made for his torture, but Spigot was made of sterner stuff. In the “Annals of Newgate” is a description of his sufferings:—“The chaplain found him lying in the vault upon the bare ground with 350 pounds weight upon his breast, and then prayed by him, and at several times asked him why he would hazard his soul by such obstinate kind of self-murder. But all the answer that he made was—‘Pray for me, pray for me!’ He sometimes lay silent under the pressure, as if insensible to pain, and then again would fetch his breath very quick and short. Several times he complained that they had laid a cruel weight upon his face, though it was covered with nothing but a thin cloth, which was afterwards removed and laid more light and hollow; yet he still complained of the prodigious weight upon his face, which might be caused by the blood being forced up thither, and pressing the veins as violently as if the force had been externally upon his face. When he had remained for half-an-hour under this load, və 50 pounds weight more laid on, being in all 400 pounds, he told those who attended him he would plead. The weights were at once taken off, the cords cut asunder; he was raised by two men, some brandy was put into his mouth to revive him, and he was carried to take his trial.” In 1735, Kişi, who pretended to be dumb at the Sussex Assizes, was sent to Horsham Gaol to be pressed to death unless he would plead. He endured in agony a weight of 350 pounds, and then the executioner, who weighed over 16 stones, laid himself upon the board upon which the weights were placed, and killed the wretched man instantly.