“_Moriendi mille figuræ._”
The two first of these modes frequently occur in cases of infanticide,
and to that head, which requires separate consideration on account of
its intricacy, we shall therefore refer it. Adults can seldom, if ever,
be exposed to destruction in this manner; though, as in —— _Brownrigg’s_
case, and others of the same class, it may constitute a part of the
crime of murdering children, even of an advanced age, by duress and
starvation; where it is by a combination of cruel injuries, and not by
one specific blow or wound, that death is produced. These cases we shall
include under a general head, having first disposed of those which
require more specific notice.
“_By imprisoning a man so strictly that he dies, and therefore where any
dies in gaol[95] the coroner ought to be sent for to enquire of the
manner of his death._”[96]
Death by duress of imprisonment was in all probability a very frequent
occurrence in the earlier periods of our history, we know that it has
often been inflicted by the individual tyranny of the nobles on their
vassals; and we have every reason to suppose, that even the keepers of
our public prisons were not free from the imputation of cruelty to their
unfortunate inmates; many have died by violence, more by neglect; it was
therefore a wise and humane precaution that the circumstances of every
death of a prisoner should be made the subject of minute enquiry; it is
also desirable that such enquiry should be carried on by persons of
competent skill, and with every possible and proper publicity. Our own
times we will hope are entirely free from the crime of premeditated
murder on the body of a prisoner; but we must not allow our confidence
in the modern improvements of prison discipline to lull us into a false
security as to the conduct of gaolers and their underlings many of these
may be men of mild and humane disposition, but as their daily occupation
must tend to blunt the finer feelings of humanity, it is well that every
charge of misconduct should be met by immediate and rigorous enquiry. On
this subject see _Rex_ v. _Huggins_, warden of the Fleet, 2 _Lord Raym._
1578; 2 _Str._ 882; 9 _Harg. St. Tri._ 107; _Bambridge’s_ case, 9 _Harg.
St. Tri._ 146, 151; _Acton’s_ case, 9 _Harg. St. Tri._ 182, 210, 218;
see also the several Parliamentary Reports on Coldbath-fields,
Ilchester, &c.
“A gaoler, knowing a prisoner to be infected with an epidemic[97]
distemper, confines another prisoner against his will, in the same room
with him, by which he catches the infection, of which the gaoler had
notice, and the prisoner dies; this is a felonious killing. _Stra._ 856;
9 _St. Tri._ 146. So, to confine a prisoner in a low damp unwholesome
room, not allowing him the common conveniences which the decencies of
nature require, by which the habits of his constitution are so affected
as to produce a distemper of which he dies; this also is felonious
homicide. _Stra._ 884; _Lord Raym._ 1578. For although the law invests
gaolers with all necessary powers for the interest of the commonwealth,
they are not to behave with the least degree of wanton cruelty to their
prisoners. _O. B._ 1784, p. 1177; and these were deliberate acts of
cruelty, and enormous violations of the trust the law reposeth in its
ministers of justice. _Forster_, 322.” See I _Hawk._ P. C. by _Leach_,
p. 119.
Previous to the researches of the celebrated _John Howard_, (see his
treatise on Prisons and Lazarettos) our prisons appear to have been in a
most disgraceful state; they are now greatly improved, but something may
yet be done for their amelioration, more particularly as affecting the
health of the prisoners; and this principally, by allowing the most
unrestrained medical inspection by disinterested practitioners, who
should be as much as possible unconnected with local prejudices, or
partialities; some of the parliamentary regulations of madhouses might
in this respect be usefully extended to all places of confinement; those
who are not _sui juris_ are ever entitled to additional protection.[98]
The best practical proof of improvement, in the construction of our
prisons, and in our prison discipline, is to be found in the
disappearance of that fatal pest, which was commonly called the gaol
fever, a disorder which, with something of retributive justice,
frequently extended its ravages to those, whose proper vigilance might
have prevented its generation. At the assizes held at Oxford in
1577,[99] called the black assize, we learn from _Baker’s_ Chronicle (p.
353) that all who were present died within forty hours: the Lord Chief
Baron, the Sheriff, and about three hundred more. _Lord Bacon_ ascribed
the fatality to a disease brought into court by the prisoners, and _Dr.
Mead_ entertained the same opinion; nor was similar infection, though to
a less extent, an uncommon occurrence[100], see vol. 1, p. 125. The
ancient practice of strewing the court with aromatic herbs and flowers,
and presenting bouquets to the Judges, is said to have derived its
origin from the idea of preventing infection: fresh air, still wanting
in our courts, would have proved a more powerful, and not less agreeable
prophylaitic.