Ο Δρ. Wael Badawy, P.Eng. SIEEE SACM

Από τον Cuming Walters.

Μια πολύ περίεργη και ενδιαφέρουσα φάση της αυτοδιοίκησης είναι αυτή που παρέχεται από το ανεξάρτητο νομικό σύστημα που ιδρύθηκε σε διάφορα μικρά νησιά στο Ηνωμένο Βασίλειο. Είναι διασκεδαστικό να παρατηρείς αυτές τις μικρές κοινότητες σε βραχονησίδες που διατηρούν επίμονα τα αρχαία προνόμιά τους, και διασκεδάζοντας γνωρίζοντας ότι έχουν έναν δικό τους κώδικα σε καμία περίπτωση σε αρμονία με τη νομοθεσία της χώρας της οποίας αποτελούν ασήμαντο μέρος. Τα δικαστήρια και οι νομικές διαδικασίες στα Channel Islands, στα νησιά Scilly, στο Isle of Man, και ακόμη και σε μερικά από τα μικρότερα νησιά γύρω από τις αγγλικές ακτές, διαφέρουν τελείως από εκείνα που είναι εγκατεστημένα στη μητέρα πατρίδα; και κάθε πρόταση αλλαγής είναι θερμά αγανακτισμένη. Σε πολλές περιπτώσεις δεν έχει, φυσικά, άξιζε τον κόπο να επιμείνει στη μεταρρύθμιση, δεδομένου ότι τα νησιά κατοικούνται από λίγες μόνο οικογένειες, που μπορεί να αφεθούν στην ησυχία τους για να διευθετήσουν τις δικές τους διαφορές εάν προκύψουν.

Υπάρχουν πολλές διάσπαρτες βραχονησίδες γύρω από την κλίση της ιρλανδικής ακτής, πολύ λίγα από τα οποία επισκέπτονται ποτέ ξένοι. 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, όπου μέχρι πριν από λίγα χρόνια οι κάτοικοι δεν γνώριζαν κανένα άλλο νόμο εκτός από αυτόν του κώδικα Brehon. Ένας επισκέπτης μέσα 1834 τους βρήκε να επιλέγουν τον δικό τους κριτή, και αποδίδοντας έτοιμη υπακοή στις εντολές «που εκδίδονται από έναν θρόνο χλοοτάπητα». Σε αυτήν την περίπτωση, και στην περίπτωση των νησιωτών του Cape Clear, διαπιστώθηκε ότι η απειλή της εξορίας στην ηπειρωτική χώρα ήταν αρκετά σοβαρή για να αποτρέψει σοβαρά εγκλήματα. Αυτά τα συναισθήματα πιθανότατα έχουν τροποποιηθεί σε πιο πρόσφατους χρόνους, Ωστόσο, η ένταση της προσκόλλησης των νησιωτών στον εγγενή βράχο τους είναι ένα από τα αναπόσπαστα χαρακτηριστικά που εξηγούν τη στιβαρή ανεξαρτησία που εκδηλώνεται στους νόμους και τα έθιμά τους. Τα σπιτάκια τους είναι μικροσκοπικοί κόσμοι τους οποίους προτιμούν να κυβερνούν με τον δικό τους τρόπο. Μπορούμε να πάρουμε το Scillies ως ευνοϊκό παράδειγμα, όπου οι ιθαγενείς προσκολλώνται στο σύστημα της πολιτικής διακυβέρνησης από δώδεκα κύριους κατοίκους που σχηματίζουν ένα Δικαστήριο υπό την προεδρία ενός στρατιωτικού αξιωματικού. Το Δικαστήριο γίνεται κάθε μήνα, και έχει δικαιοδοσία σε αστικές αγωγές και δευτερεύουσες αιτίες. Ο Σερίφης για την Κορνουάλη έχει, ή, σε όλες τις εκδηλώσεις, είχε, δεν υπάρχει δικαιοδοσία στα νησιά, αν και πρόσωπα που διώκονται για κακουργήματα (που είναι εξαιρετικά σπάνιες) πρέπει να υποβιβαστεί στους Assizes στο Launceston.

Το πατριαρχικό σύστημα ήταν πάντα εμφανές στα μικρά νησιά της Σκωτίας, οι οποίες, για το μεγαλύτερο μέρος, είναι οι κτήσεις των απογόνων φεουδαρχών οπλαρχηγών. Ο Δρ. Ο Τζόνσον διαφημίστηκε σε αυτό το γεγονός με αφορμή το διάσημο ταξίδι του στο Βορρά:—«Πολλά από τα μικρότερα νησιά δεν έχουν νομικούς υπαλλήλους μέσα τους.

κάποτε ρώτησα, εάν έπρεπε να διαπραχθεί ένα έγκλημα, με ποια αρχή θα μπορούσε να συλληφθεί ο δράστης, και του είπαν ότι η κουκλάρα θα ασκούσε το δίκιο του; ένα δικαίωμα που τώρα πρέπει να σφετεριστεί, αλλά που απλώς η αναγκαιότητα πρέπει να δικαιώσει, και η οποία επομένως εξακολουθεί να ασκείται σε χαμηλότερους βαθμούς από ορισμένους από τους ιδιοκτήτες όταν δεν μπορεί να επιτευχθεί νομική διαδικασία.» Αλλά αφού παρατήρησα πώς λειτουργούσε το σύστημα, Ο Δρ. Ο Τζόνσον παραδέχτηκε ελεύθερα ότι όταν οι ληστή ήταν άνθρωποι της γνώσης και της αρετής, η ευκολία ενός εγχώριου δικαστή ήταν μεγάλη. Λόγω της απόστασης ορισμένων από τα νησιά και της δυσκολίας πρόσβασης σε άλλα, μετά βίας ήταν δυνατό να υπαχθούν στο κοινό δίκαιο, και διαπιστώνουμε ότι σε ορισμένες περιπτώσεις επετράπη στους ιδιοκτήτες να ενεργούν ως δικαστές από την επιτροπή του Λόρδου-Υλοχαγού. Μερικοί από τους παλιούς λαϊκούς είχαν μια πολύ αποτελεσματική αλλά αδικαιολόγητη μέθοδο επιβολής των νόμων τους. Λόρδος Seaforth, Ύπατος Αρχηγός Kintail, ανυπομονούσε να καταργήσει ένα πολύ απεχθές έθιμο της γυναικείας δουλείας που επικρατούσε στο νησί Lewis. Οι άνδρες συνήθιζαν να χρησιμοποιούν τις γυναίκες ως βοοειδή, αναγκάζοντάς τους να σχεδιάζουν βάρκες σαν άλογα, και, μεταξύ άλλων, να μεταφέρουν άντρες στις πλάτες τους στα βαθιά και επικίνδυνα περάσματα. Αυτή η πρακτική αηδίασε πολύ τον Λόρδο Seaforth, που βρήκε, ωστόσο, ότι ήταν ιδιαίτερα δύσκολο να ελεγχθεί. Έφτασε μια μέρα έφιππος σε ένα ρέμα που περνούσε ικανοποιημένος ένας χωρικός, τοποθετημένο στους ώμους μιας γυναίκας. Όταν έφτασε στη μέση του ρέματος, ο κοίλης παρότρυνε το άλογό του να μπει μπροστά, και ήρθε με το ζευγάρι, όταν απλώνοντας ζωηρά το μαστίγιο του γύρω από την πλάτη του άντρα, 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. So keen is the sense of propriety in that island that a whole family has been known to slink away, unable to bear the disgrace brought upon them by an individual delinquent. Orkney and Shetland once possessed all the characteristics of a separate kingdom, the laws of no other countries being imposed upon them. There was none to dispute the laird’s right, and legal administration was entirely in his hands, εκτός από την περίοδο που τα νησιά τέθηκαν υπό επισκοπική κυριαρχία. Αξίζει να σημειωθεί ότι ο πιο διάσημος από τους κυβερνώντες επισκόπους, Ρόμπερτ Ριντ (tempus 1540), κατέλαβε επίσης το ανώτατο αξίωμα του Προέδρου του Δικαστηρίου Συνόδου στο Εδιμβούργο, και αυτός και οι διάδοχοί του λέγεται ότι κυβέρνησαν με εμφανή πραότητα και δικαιοσύνη.

Μπορούμε τώρα να στραφούμε σε ένα ή δύο αγγλικά νησιά προτού αφιερώσουμε την προσοχή στα πιο σημαντικά παραδείγματα όλων—αυτά που παρέχονται από το Isle of Man και τα Channel Islands. Το Isle of Wight θεωρείται «ξεχωριστό» από το Hampshire μόνο για έναν νόμιμο σκοπό, όσο μπόρεσα να βεβαιωθώ. Αποτελεί μέρος της «κομητείας του Σαουθάμπτον» για όλους τους σκοπούς εκτός από την πληρωμή φόρου γης: για αυτό έχει ξεχωριστή ευθύνη. Αλλά τα τμήματα φόρου γης είναι τα πιο παράτυπα, και το λιγότερο ομοιόμορφο από κάθε νομικό τμήμα της χώρας, και επομένως δεν προκαλεί έκπληξη το γεγονός ότι το Isle of Wight υπόκειται από αυτή την άποψη σε ιδιόμορφη χρήση. Το Purbeck είναι ένα από εκείνα τα «νησιά» στην Αγγλία που πλέον εξαρτώνται περισσότερο από την παράδοση για την ονομασία τους, παρά φυσική συμφωνία με τον γεωγραφικό ορισμό. Αυτό που είναι αξιοσημείωτο είναι ότι αυτά τα «νησιά»—όπως το Isle of Purbeck, το Isle of Ely, το Isle of Glastonbury, και το Isle of Meare—σχεδόν όλα έχουν ορισμένους καθιερωμένους και αναγνωρισμένους νόμους τους για τις μικρές κοινότητες που κατοικούν εντός των συνόρων τους. Οι λατόμοι του Purbeck θεωρούν τους εαυτούς τους μια φυλή χωριστά, and their guild is one of the closest and strictest character. Their homage is paid exclusively to the lord of the manor, and the “Marblers” claim to have received a special charter from King Edward. On Shrove Tuesday they elect their officers, and celebrate the occasion by kicking a football round the boundaries. One ancient custom observed on these occasions is to carry a pound of pepper to the lord of the manor, as an acknowledgement to him in respect to a “right of way.” Until comparatively recent times the government of the island was patriarchal in character. The Isle of Glastonbury had its “House of Twelve Hides” for the trial of petty cases in the locality, and tradition reports that unusually large dungeons were prepared for the immuring of those who offended in the renowned Avalonian isle.

The Isle of Man, when subject to the Kings of Norway, was a subordinate feudatory kingdom. It afterwards came under the dominion of the English Kings, John and Henry 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, ωστόσο, 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, και, σε 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, while its own roundabout and antiquated methods of procedure have been found to favour the criminal rather than to aid prosecutors and complainants.

Perhaps this was never more vividly illustrated than in the recent case of the murderer Cooper, who profited by the cumbrous and lenient processes of Manx law to the extent of getting an atrocious crime reduced to manslaughter. The laws have often been amended. Prior to 1417 they were “locked up in the breasts of the Deemsters,” 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, σε 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, και, 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. Αφ 'ετέρου, 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, and every fifth of July the Manxman has his open-air Parliament for the promulgation of laws. But it is a gala day rather than a day of business. “Reluctantly I admit,” writes Mr. Hall Caine, “that the proceedings were, in themselves, long, tiresome, ineffectual, formless, unimpressive, and unpicturesque. The senior Deemster, the amiable and venerable Sir Wm. Drinkwater, read the titles of the new laws in English. Then the coroner of the premier sheading, Glenfaba, recited the same titles in Manx. Hardly anybody heard them; hardly anybody listened.”

The Channel Islands were part of the Duchy of Normandy, and their laws are mostly the ducal customs as set forth in an ancient book known as “Le Grand Coustumier.” Acts of the English Parliament do not apply to these Islands unless specifically mentioned, 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. Σε 1860, ωστόσο, 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, ωστόσο, 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. If the Jersey laws confined the persons merely of strangers sued by the inhabitants of the island, in the arbitrary manner described, the justice of such a practice might still be defended on the plea of preventing them from leaving the island; but no excuse can be found when the Jersey law is made an instrument in the hands of strangers, living out of the jurisdiction of the island, and when it is used to enforce payment of debts incurred in another place, and in which no inhabitant of the island is interested, and when (as sometimes happens) it is employed as a means of extortion. In the first case it can be urged that, τουλάχιστον, it gives protection to the islander, which may be all proper enough, though the system is liable to abuse. In the second, 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. Surely the law is barbarous enough for the people of Jersey, without its consequences being extended beyond its circumference. Αλλά, as matters stand at present, the case stands thus: A and B fall out together. Now B is a rogue. They go to law together, and B demands of A more than he is entitled to. The courts in England are about to decide upon the merits of the case. Meanwhile B learns that A is gone to Jersey for a short time on business, perhaps connected with this very affair, such, για παράδειγμα, as looking up an important witness. What does B do? He immediately sends off a letter enclosing his little account to a Jersey lawyer, instructing him to demand payment or lock up A forthwith. The lawyer obeys, φυσικά; A storms—protests—all in vain. He is incarcerated, and is told he may explain as much as he likes afterwards; αλλά, in the meantime, must go to prison, ή 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, who, φυσικά, 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, ή 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,” says Mr. 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. Πράγματι, 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.

By George Neilson.

IT might be thought that a man’s death made an end of him, and that his mere body had no rights or duties except that of getting decently buried. The middle age had other ideas. The dead still had status and duties. Continental laws recognised acts of renunciation in which a widow laid the keys on her husband’s corpse, or tapped his grave with the point of a halberd. The body of a murdered person, ή, it might be his hand merely, might be carried before the judge to demand vengeance. By English thirteenth century law legal possession of real estate was thought to remain in a man, not until he died, but until his body was borne forth to burial. The dead might be a very potent witness, as shewn by the ordeal of bier-right, μια πρακτική που βασίζεται στην πεποίθηση ότι το άγγιγμα του δολοφόνου θα έκανε τα τραύματα του θύματος να αιμορραγήσουν ξανά. Έτσι, με διάφορα προσόντα για να ενεργεί ως μάρτυρας ή εισαγγελέας ανάλογα με την περίσταση, Δεν αποτελεί έκπληξη να βρούμε τον νεκρό ως κατηγορούμενο επίσης.

Η αγγλική ιστορία θυμάται την παράξενη σκηνή που έγινε στο μοναστήρι της Καέν 1087, όταν ο Γουλιέλμος ο Πορθητής κείτονταν νεκρός εκεί, και οι τελετές της κηδείας του διακόπηκαν από μια παράξενη έκκληση. Ascelin, ο γιος του Αρθούρου, ισχυρίστηκε δυνατά ως δικό του, ούτε πουλήθηκε ούτε δόθηκε, τη γη στην οποία βρισκόταν η εκκλησία, και, απαγορεύοντας την ταφή, έκανε έκκληση στους νεκρούς να τον αποδώσουν δικαιοσύνη. Περισσότερα από ένα παλιό αγγλικό ποίημα έστρεψαν την πλοκή τους γύρω από τον αρχαίο κανονικό νόμο, με την οποία μπορεί να καθυστερήσει η ταφή για χρέος. Ο νεκρός ήταν σύλληψη: ένας νόμος που στη συνέχεια παραμερίστηκε, “for death dissolved all things.” But in more codes than one death did not dissolve liability for the consequences of high treason.

In Scotland, in the year 1320, at the “black parliament” of Scone, several Scotsmen were convicted of conspiracy against King Robert the

Bruce. Most of them were drawn, hanged, and beheaded. But a Scottish historian of the time tells us that Roger of Mowbray, one of the accused, having died before his trial, “his body was carried to the place, convicted of conspiracy, and condemned to be drawn by horses, hung on the gallows, and beheaded.” It is to the credit of Bruce that he did not allow the corporal part of the sentence to be carried out, although many entries in the charter rolls[24] shew that the consequent escheats of the traitor’s lands served to reward the loyalty of others. His body convicted of conspiracy! How came this singular procedure into Scottish practice?

Στην Αγγλία, towards the close of the fourteenth century, although escheats were not less keenly looked after than in Scotland—and that sometimes in cases where men had died unconvicted,—the purpose of attainder appears to have been effected without the expedient of calling the dead to the bar. The dead, ωστόσο, was convicted. In the case of Robert Plesyngton, για παράδειγμα, σε 1397, the judgment of Parliament bore an express conviction of treason, "noun-obstant la mort de dit Roberd.” In 1400, John, Earl of Salisbury, challenged for treason by Lord Morley, was killed before the day appointed for the duel. The court not only adjudged him a traitor, but on grounds eked out by Roman law subjected his sureties in costs to his accuser—said costs including the handsome fee of 100s. and twelve yards of scarlet cloth to the lawyer Adam of Usk.

In all features save perhaps that of the actual presence of the body in the trial, warrant can be found for the Scottish practice in Roman law. The offence of “majesty,” or high treason, formed an exception to the great humane general rule that responsibility for crime ended with the criminal’s breath. Under the Lex Julia death was no defence to a charge of “majesty;” proceedings could be raised to stamp the dead man’s name with the brand of treason; his kinsmen might if they chose deny and defend; αλλά αν δεν τον εκτελωνίσουν τα εμπορεύματά του κατασχέθηκαν και η μνήμη του καταδικαζόταν. Υπάρχει στα χρονικά της Ρώμης τουλάχιστον μία περίπτωση θανατικής ποινής αυτού του είδους που εκφωνήθηκε αφού ο κατηγορούμενος ήταν στον τάφο του. Ούτε το πεδίο εφαρμογής του περιοριζόταν απολύτως στην εσχάτη προδοσία. Η Εκκλησία είχε έναν ήσυχο τρόπο να οικειοποιηθεί τσιμπήματα βάρβαρης πολιτικής για ευσεβείς χρήσεις. Ο αυτοκράτορας Θεοδόσιος είπε ότι η εξέταση για την αίρεση θα έπρεπε να επεκταθεί στον ίδιο τον θάνατο; και όπως στο έγκλημα της μεγαλοπρέπειας, έτσι σε περιπτώσεις αίρεσης, θα έπρεπε να είναι νόμιμο να κατηγορείται η μνήμη των νεκρών. Οι Πάπες ενέκριναν την αναλογία, γιατί οι αιρετικοί είχαν αγαθά, που μερικές φορές άξιζε να χαθούν. Ωστόσο, η πνευματική εξουσία ήταν πιο σημαντική. Η Εκκλησία διεκδίκησε τη δύναμη να δένει και να χαλαρώνει ακόμη και μετά θάνατον, and a Welsh twelfth century bishop did not stand alone when he carried it so far as to scourge the body of a king who had died excommunicate. On the same principle dead heretics—dead before sentence of heresy—were burnt.

It was by a close following up of Roman jurisprudence, with, peradventure, some added light from the law and practice of the Church, that the French devised their procés au cadavre, by which the memory of a dead traitor was attacked. Its special application was to lesemajesty described as divine and human, the former an elastic term covering offences against God and religion. Allied to this latter category, though not exactly of it, was the mortal sin of suicide. Η αυτοσφαγή ήταν τόσο απεχθής για τη μεσαιωνική σκέψη που όχι μόνο θεωρούνταν πιο ένοχη, αλλά για να ζητήσει πιο επαίσχυντη τιμωρία, σχεδόν από οποιοδήποτε άλλο έγκλημα. Σύζευξη λοιπόν του προδότη και του αυτοκτονήματος στην ίδια απέχθεια, ο νόμος επιτέθηκε και στους δύο με την ίδια περίεργη μεταθανάτια διαδικασία, και (με μεθόδους συλλογισμού που ο Βολταίρος ήταν ένας από τους πρώτους που χλεύασε) παρέδωσαν τις ψυχές τους στην απώλεια, οι αναμνήσεις τους στην ύβρη, και τα κορμιά τους μέχρι το τσόφλι. Η αντιμετώπιση της αυτοκτονίας ήταν ιδιόμορφη στις βελτιώσεις της συμβολικής ντροπής. Το σώμα ήταν, από το εθιμικό δίκαιο (για παράδειγμα, του Beaumont), να τραβηχτεί στο γκίμπετ όσο πιο σκληρά γίνεται, να καμαρώνω εμπειρία σε άλλους. Το ίδιο το κατώφλι του σπιτιού στο οποίο βρισκόταν επρόκειτο να σκιστεί, for the dead man was not worthy to pass over it. Impalement, transfixture by a stake, though well enough known on the continent as a punishment of the living, became there and in England alike, the special doom of the suicide. Yet the procés au cadavre had no footing in English law, and although it was already in 1320 received in Scotland, we shall find reason for thinking it not wholly welcome.

After the trial in 1320 before alluded to, the records in Scotland are silent for over two centuries, and it is not until 1540 that the process is heard of again. In that year the heirs of one Robert Leslie were summoned to the court of parliament to hear his name and memory “delete and extinct,” for certain points and crimes of lesemajesty, and his lands and goods forfeited to the king. Legal authorities, obviously forgetful of the fourteenth century instance, follow one another in the mistake of regarding Leslie’s as the first of its kind. The legality of the procedure was called in question at the time. Πράγματι, so loud was the murmur that it can still be heard in the act passed to put it to silence. “It is murmurit,” says the enactment, “that it is ane noveltie to rais summondis and move sic ane actioun aganis ane persoun that is deide, howbeit the commoun law directly providis the samin.” The three estates of parliament therefore on the motion of the lord advocate, declared unanimously “all in ane voce, but variance or discrepance,” that the cause was just and conform to common law. In another case of the following year the charge and judgment were enrolled in the Acts of Parliament. The widow and the heir of the late James Colville were summoned “to see and hear that the said deceased James, όσο ζούσε είχε διαπράξει το έγκλημα της λευτερότητας». Η απελευθέρωση του κοινοβουλίου ως δικαστήριο ήταν, σύμφωνα με τους όρους του, μια πραγματική ποινή για τους νεκρούς - ότι ο αποθανών Τζέιμς «υπήρξε το πανί του εγκλήματος του lesemajeste» για το οποίο το δικαστήριο έκρινε «το υπόμνημα του εν λόγω μεγάλου Τζέιμς να διαγραφεί,» και τα υπάρχοντά του κατασχέθηκαν στο στέμμα. Το Κοινοβούλιο, το οποίο είχε ψηφίσει ομόφωνα τη διαδικασία με βάση το νόμο, διαπίστωσε ότι ήταν επικίνδυνο. Ήταν απαραίτητο να περιοριστεί το πεδίο εφαρμογής του. Σε 1542, είναι στο κοινοβουλευτικό αρχείο[44] ότι «ο άρχοντας νομίζει η εν λόγω πράξη [δηλ., του 1540], οφείλουμε γενικά και προκαταλαμβάνουμε όλους τους βαρίους αυτού του βασίλειου». Αυτό δεν θα γινόταν ποτέ:— μια πράξη επιζήμια για τους βαρόνους! Έτσι έγινε νόμος νόμου το 1542, that it should apply only to cases of grave treason, public and notorious during the offender’s life, and that prosecution for the future must be raised within five years after the traitor’s death. It was a reasonable restraint, not always observed.

During the reigns of Mary and James VI. a number of trials occurred in which this singular process was resorted to, and in some, αν όχι όλα, of which the body of the dead appeared at the bar. Occasionally it was embalmed for the purpose. It had been a part of the border code, prevalent on the marches of England and Scotland, that an accused should, although dead, be brought to the place of judgment in person. Σε 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, though all included one that was no more. “Thoughe one of the nomber were dead, yet was he brought and presented at this place.” They evidently believed on the borders, which Sir Robert Cary with some reason called an “uncristned cuntry,” that a man could best prove that he was dead by attendance in person.

In trials for treason this principle was pushed in some instances to strange extremes. Probably one underlying reason of this, at a date so late, was to make sure that no formality should be lacking to make the forfeiture effective. But the main reason one must believe lay in its being a traditional observance. In the trial in 1600, of the Earl of Gowrie and his brother for an alleged attempt on the king’s life, το μυστικό συμβούλιο στο προοίμιο ότι ήταν απαραίτητο να κρατηθούν και να διατηρηθούν τα πτώματα τους άταφα, εξέδωσε σχετική πράξη, και οι λογαριασμοί του ταμία περιέχουν μια καταχώρηση «για τη μεταφορά του πτώματος του Gowrie και του αδελφού του». Κατά συνέπεια, τα σώματά τους παρήχθησαν στη δίκη, και την ποινή που τους έκρινε ένοχους για προδοσία και ασέβεια κατά τη διάρκεια της ζωής τους, δήλωσαν το όνομά τους, μνήμη, και η αξιοπρέπεια έσβησε, και όρισε ότι «οι νεκροί σώματα του ρηθέντος Τρατούρη,» πρέπει να κρεμαστεί, σε τέταρτο, και τσακίστηκε. Their “twa hedis,», λέει ένας ζοφερός ημερολόγος, είχαν τοποθετηθεί πάνω στον συρτάρι, «Να στέκομαι, ο άνεμος φυσάει το Τάμε μακριά».

Η τελευταία περίπτωση στα χρονικά, in which this revolting Scottish “practick” was put into effect, occurred in 1609. Robert Logan, of Restalrig, had been nearly three years in his grave when it was given out that he had been a party to the alleged Gowrie conspiracy against King James. A process was at once taken in hand to proscribe his memory and escheat his property. As death was no excuse, neither was burial; and the ghastly form was gone through of exhuming the bones for presentation at the trial. It was a case plainly within the exception provided for in the act of 1542, for the man was not “notourly” a traitor, he had died in repute of loyalty: but the Crown was eager for a conviction. Much incredulity had been rife with regard to the Gowrie conspiracy. The evidences now adduced were—on the surface at any rate, παρόλο, ίσως, as many critics still think, on the surface only,—circumstantial and strong. The prosecution was therefore keenly pressed, and the reluctance of some of the judges overcome. A jocular jurist-commentator on these post-mortem trials, has remarked that the bones of a traitor could neither plead defences, nor cross-question witnesses. But in the dawn of the seventeenth century they could turn the sympathy of the court against the charge, as it appears they did in Logan’s case. The proofs, ωστόσο, looked overwhelming, and the forfeiture was carried without a dissenting voice from the bench—from the bench, because it was, as all Scots treason-trials then were, a trial by judges only, not by judge and jury. Logan’s memory was declared extinct and abolished, and his possessions forfeited. The judgment, ωστόσο, 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, and it is surely a stain on the boasted enlightenment of the nineteenth century, that the century had run through nearly three-fourths of its existence before the terrible and vindictive punishment of drawing and quartering disappeared from our statute book. In most States the early laws have been of a blood-thirsty and fear-inspiring nature, but what excuse can be urged for the fact that until the fourth day of July, in the year of Grace 1870, the punishment ordained by law for the crime of high treason, was that the unfortunate offender should be drawn on a hurdle to the place of execution, there to be hanged by the neck till he be dead; that his head be severed from his body; that his body be divided into four quarters; and that his head and quarters be at the disposal of the Crown. In Blackstone’s time the sentence was still more savage, ή, 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; Για, 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; σε 1542, Margaret Davey suffered the same lingering death at Smithfield. So fearful were our ancestors of poison, that in Scotland, σε 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. Αν, ωστόσο, 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, indeed, 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, ρωτήθηκε, 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? Αν είναι έτσι, 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 Henry 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 χρόνια.

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., σε 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, και ούτω καθεξής. 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. Σε 1731 Joseph Cook, aged 70 χρόνια, 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. Σε 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, επομένως, 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, and they were condemned and duly executed.

The laws for the protection of trade decreed many cruel punishments. Ετσι, in the reign of Elizabeth, an Act passed for the encouragement of the woollen industry prescribed that the penalty for taking live sheep out of the country should be forfeiture of goods, imprisonment for a year, and that at the end of the year the left hand of the prisoner should be cut off in a public market, and be there nailed up in the most public place. A second offence was punishable with death. By statute 21 James I. chapter 19, anyone unfortunate enough to become a bankrupt was nailed by one ear to the pillory for two hours, and then had the ear cut off. Under the Romans a bankrupt was treated still more unmercifully, 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, and in 1716 Mrs. 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 as it was called, 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. Σε 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, και 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, a man, 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.