TREATMENT OF THE INSANE
As the abnormal and the rationally eccentric were considered witches,
and held to have been disciples of the devil, so the more obviously
sense-bereft were thought to be controlled by the fiends within them.
Both witches and lunatics were held to be beneath the sway of infernal
powers, but the former as willing agents of the devil, and the latter as
involuntary victims, who were deemed to be possessed. In ancient Egypt,
by the Temple of Saturn,[612] in classic Greece with the Asclepieia, and
by the laws of Pagan Rome,[613] the mentally afflicted were treated with
humanity, and, if without the aid of our present science, at least upon
the same broad principles which we adopt to-day.
In the warm sunlight of the Eastern lands the life of the population was
spent in the open air. As we read in the Scriptures and in books of
travel, the lunatic might dwell amidst the tombs. He could wander
through the soothing cypress groves in the moonlight or lie under
shading palm in the noontide heat. He dwelt apart, like the leper, cut
off by his terrible infirmity from the kinship of reason, but free at
least in the air and sunlight, and often allowed a quite especial
licence[614] as being in the guardianship of God.[615] But the
troublesome conduct into which lunatics were ever liable to be led[616]
would frequently rouse the instinct of retaliation, and bring down swift
and heavy punishment upon them.[617]
In Europe also and in England the less-dangerous lunatics “were allowed
to wander about the country,[618] beggars and vagabonds, affording
sport[619] and mockery.” We get a vivid glimpse from Shakespeare of that
“poor Tom[620] that eats the swimming frog, the toad, the tadpole, the
wall newt and the water newt, that in the fury of his heart, when the
foul fiend rages, eats cow-dung for sallets, swallows the old rat and
the ditch dog, drinks the green mantle of the slimy pool;[621] who is
whipt from tything to tything, and stocked, punished, and
imprisoned.”[622]
This was the lot of sufferers in those times, and beyond doubt a certain
number of them, unmindful or unheedful of savage laws, obeyed the
obsessing suicidal impulse which is so common among mad people; and
through this many of the most afflicted must have been taken, in the
mercy of nature, out of the world of men in which they had no part. But
if the half-witted poor were allowed to wander,[623] those of the richer
class were less fortunate. Their families were shy and ashamed of them;
they were concealed and locked in garrets and cellars, or penned apart,
secured in sheds and outhouses—fastened up anywhere about the
premises.[624]
Medicines there were indeed for the insane patients, and some of them
might have added to the witches’ cauldron.[625] Among the less nauseous
of these came wolf’s and lion’s flesh,[626] and as our Saxon forefathers
were skilled herbalists, we find the clovewort, polion, and peony
recommended,[627] also the mandrake, round which many stories were woven
from its resemblance to the human form. They said: “For witlessness,
that is, for devil sickness or demoniacal possession, take from the body
of the same wort mandrake by weight of three pennies, administer to
drink in warm water as he may find convenient; soon he will be
healed.”[628]
Doubtless in all civilisations the more acutely insane would have to be
a care for the community.[629] The early Christians tended them in their
churches, in which they stood in a special part,[630] and where they
were provided with food “while they abode in the church, which, it
seems, was the chief place of their residence and habitation.”[631]
The monks to some extent looked after them in their monasteries.[632]
But whatever medicines or other remedies they may have employed, the
main idea of those days about lunacy was that it came through demoniacal
possession. The object was to drive the devils out. To accomplish this
they seem to have resorted to all sorts of incongruous “cures,” both
ghostly and physical.[633] The great spiritual weapon has always been
exorcism. This was the primal art of all religions, and it was practised
also by the early Christians.
In the third century the exorcists were formed into a special
order.[634] “When an exorcist is ordained,” we read, “he shall receive
at the hands of the bishop a book wherein the forms of exorcism are
written. These forms were certain passages together with adjurations in
the name of Christ commanding the unclean spirit to depart out of the
possessed person.” This custom has continued through the centuries,[635]
forming the subject of innumerable legends and pictures relating to
saints and teachers in the middle ages; and though the practice seems to
be in abeyance,[636] the old idea of exorcism is not dead. We must
perceive this when we read,[637] for instance, “Water and salt are
exorcised by the priest, and so withdrawn from the power of Satan, who,
since the Fall, has corrupted and abused even inanimate things.[638] But
besides the weapons, mystic and spiritual, employed by the Church, were
others of a more corporeal character.
The patients were bound to venerated crosses at evening, to be released
as cured in the morning.[639] They were chained fast to stones in
various churches; they were dipped into holy wells—this custom lasted in
Cornwall to modern times; and they were sent as pilgrims to
shrines,[640] at some of which they underwent a regular course of
treatment; music was often an important element.[641] And remedies far
more drastic might be provided, which relied not so much upon the power
of the saints as on the human weakness of the devils.
Thus, scattered among the recipes for herbs and all the indescribable
filthy mixtures which were advocated for insanity,[642] we come across
the following prescription, the effects of which would prove anything
but imaginary:—“In case a man be a lunatic, take skin of a mereswine or
porpoise, work it into a whip, swinge the man well therewith, soon he
will be well. Amen.” At one monastery the lunatics in the charge of the
monks are said to have received ten lashes every day.[643]
The insane have been flogged for various reasons:—(1) Superstitiously,
to drive out the devil, and even to scare away a disease; (2)
therapeutically, because pain and shock would often subdue the ravings
of the patients, although only temporarily; (3) instinctively, as a
relief to their keepers’ feelings. The medical and the brutal whippings
we shall meet again later on, long after devil-driving had been
abandoned, though it prevailed through Christendom for probably over
sixteen hundred years. To understand it we must turn aside to savages.
Primitive peoples,[644] like children, _personified_ everything. Disease
appeared to be a sort of personal entity—like that deceitful dream[645]
Zeus sent to Agamemnon—a “thing” “to be drawn out in an invisible form,
and burnt in the fire or thrown into the water.” A foe invisible, but
yet so human in its limitations as to be stopped by thorns placed in its
path.[646] And if all manner of physical ailments were looked upon as
being, or, at any rate, as emanating from personal demons, much more
would such a fearful and mysterious affliction as insanity be held to
indicate a devil’s presence and immediate handiwork.[647] Moreover, to
the primitive mind, the demons of all sorts were much too near, too
vividly conceived, too real, too commonplace, to be regarded as
spiritual beings within the modern meaning of the word. They were
conceived as obviously living and moving about,[648] and therefore as
being human in their character. Thus among savages “the souls of the
dead are thought susceptible of being beaten, hurt, and driven like any
other living creatures,”[649] and demons could be hunted out of the
houses and scared away to woods and outer darkness.[650]
The ideas of the profoundly superstitious middle ages resembled these.
Even the great opponent or accuser, Satan, who was restored by Milton to
the rôle of Ahriman,[651] was but a wretched creature, a poor
devil,[652] in the popular imagination. “He” is continually outwitted
like the pantomime policeman,[653] and nonplussed by the shallowest
equivocations.[654] He beats a man[655] and is beaten and
vanquished.[656] He aims a stone at Dunstan and misses,[657] and when
seized by the nose with pincers, his bellowings are heard for three
miles round.[658] He howls when sprinkled with holy water,[659] and
Luther hurls an inkstand at his head.[660] This man-like and material
monster of course felt pain, and when he took up his abode in a human
body he was supposed to feel the blows inflicted on the sufferer.[661]
It was the devil (or his representative) who might be driven out of man
or woman; the demons could be commanded to quit each portion of the
invaded body, member by member.[662] The fiends were supposed to writhe
in anguish[663] when the possessed cowered beneath salt water or the
whip.[664] On _them_ the curses and the stripes were meant to
descend,[665] until at last, through unendurable torments, they fled the
body by the nearest orifice.[666]
This crude and savage way of expelling “devils” was long continued;
belief in it is probably by no means dead in the minds of some
countryfolk. Hawthorne, writing of the seventeenth century
Puritans,[667] makes the gaoler say of his prisoner, “Verily she hath
been like a possessed one, and there lacks but little that I should take
in hand to drive Satan out of her with stripes.” But there were times
enough when exorcism failed and flogging proved unavailing. Then the
insane would have to be restrained and subjected to some sort of
treatment[668]—to say some sort of _ill-treatment_ were nearer the
truth. Doubtless they always aimed at quieting the more troublesome
patients, and bringing them into order, if not back to reason.
Says Andrew Boorde in his strange _Regyment of Health_:[669] “I do
advertyse every mā the which is mad or lunaticke or frenticke or
demoniacke, to be kept in save garde in some close house or chambre
where there is lytell lyght. And that he have a keper the which the mad
man do feare.” The same idea we see expressed by Shakespeare:[670]
“We’ll have him in a dark room and bound,” is the immediate cry towards
the mad. Shut up and bound they were, in all manner of ways and places,
by relatives, monks, and keepers. As we have seen, many were executed as
witches or malefactors, and would be thrown into gatehouses and
prisons,[671] where they might furnish horrible diversion for the other
prisoners,[672] and where they were sometimes drugged to make them
silent and to cease from raving.[673] Sometimes they were placed in such
hospitals as there were,[674] along with fever and accident cases.[675]
In the course of time, as population spread and townships grew, the old
resorts were found to be inadequate. The number of the lunatics was
increasing, and the whole country was filling up and enclosing. Whipping
from place to place became ineffective, and there had been no public
institutions available but monasteries, gaols, and hospitals.[676] In
the year 1247 was founded by Bishopsgate the Priory of St. Mary of
Bethlem,[677] and here insane people were kept and tended, at any rate
from 1403. Doubtless there came to be other places thus put to use, such
as, for instance, one St. Katherine’s by the Tower,[678] where, we are
told, “they used to keep the better sort of mad folks.” But it was not
until about the middle of the eighteenth century[679] that grim and
sombre circumvallate buildings began to be erected to intern the
troublesome.[680] “They were,” says Dr. Conolly,[681] “but prisons of
the worst description. Small openings in the walls, unglazed, or whether
glazed or not, guarded with strong iron bars, narrow corridors, dark
cells, desolate courts, where no tree nor shrub nor flower nor blade of
grass grew.[682] Solitariness, or companionship so indiscriminate as to
be worse than solitude; terrible attendants armed with whips ... and
free to impose manacles and chains and stripes at their own brutal will;
uncleanness, semi-starvation, the garrotte, and unpunished murders—these
were the characteristics of such buildings throughout Europe.” What may
be called the theoretical treatment was bad enough. Those who could not
be cured must be subdued;[683] the teaching of Boerhaave and Cullen
admitted this, and the latter wrote: “Fear being the passion that
diminishes excitement, may therefore be opposed to the excess of it, and
particularly to the angry and irascible excitement of maniacs; these
being more susceptible of fear than might be expected, it appears to me
to have been commonly useful.”[684]
It was desired “to acquire some awe over them,”[685] and he declares
that “sometimes it may be necessary to acquire it even by stripes and
blows.”[686] This was the therapeutic flogging already alluded to.[687]
Shock, terror, blistering, bleeding, purging, the use of chains and all
manner of manacles[688]—these were the means employed and set down in
the textbooks to heal the disordered mechanism of the brain.[689]
In the _Gentleman’s Magazine_ of 1765[690] we read of the private
asylums that “persons were taken forcibly to these houses without any
authority, instantly seized by a set of inhuman ruffians trained up to
this barbarous profession, stripped naked, and conveyed to a dark room.”
So ignorant were the doctors of those days as to the nature of insanity
that the harsh cruelties practised on private patients were carried out
even upon the king. Of the eighteenth-century practice Mr. Massie has
written:[691] “Mental disease was at that time a branch of art little
understood, and the specific treatment of lunatics was worthy of the
barbarous age of medicine. The unhappy patient” (King George III.) “upon
whom this most terrible visitation of Heaven had fallen, was no longer
dealt with as a human being. His body was immediately enclosed in a
machine, which left it no liberty of motion. He was sometimes chained to
a staple. He was frequently beaten and starved, and at least he was kept
in subjection by menacing and violent language.” That, like most
lunatics, he was very annoying is certain; he once talked for nineteen
hours unceasing. But all his troubles were intensified by
ill-treatment;[692] they left him to be knocked about by a German
servant,[693] and the first doctors kept him even from his own children,
at which the poor old man complained “very heavily.”[694] Such, then,
was the orthodox treatment applied against the highest in the land. But
the worst deeds were done behind thick walls. “Sane people,” says
Beach,[695] writing of private establishments, “were frequently confined
in these asylums, for persons frequently availed themselves of the
facilities[696] then in use in order to get rid of a troublesome
relative or to obtain some selfish object.”
And what of the really mad?[697]—irritable, violent, irrational,
helpless, often with as little control over the functions of the body as
on the workings of the mind. We can imagine what their state became when
left in the hands of ignorant practitioners and brutal attendants, with
chains and instruments of restraint convenient and ready. Screened off
from all kith and kin they writhed with sores and rotted in ordure.[698]
Sometimes—mostly on Monday mornings after the Sabbath rest and
accumulations—they might be carried out into a yard[698] to be mopped
and soused from pails in the coldest weather.[699]
The condition of the living rooms and wards[700] was often such that
visitors grew physically sick from going into them;[701] but they were
rare within those private prisons,[702] strangers are never welcome
behind the walls. At York Asylum[703]—an especial plague spot opened in
1777 and burnt,[704] it is said, to avoid disclosures that might hang
its keepers,[705] in 1814—a rule was adopted in 1813 “that no
person[706] shall be allowed to visit any of the patients without a
special written order signed by the physitian.” Official visitors were
generally harmless.[707] At York the worst rooms were not shown
them.[708] For most of the small asylums there were none at all.[709]
Even the larger public asylums during the eighteenth, and also far into
the nineteenth century, were horrible monuments of cruelty and neglect.
The miserable patients lay upon straw in cells,[710] or upon wooden
shelves to which they were fastened. Many were naked or decked over with
one blanket.[711] In the wards they were frequently chained to the wall
by wrist or ankle,[712] and occasionally by both. One patient at
Bethlem,[713] a fierce, powerful man whose name was Norris, after a
fracas with a drunken keeper, had his arms and shoulders encased in a
frame of iron obtained from Newgate.[714] This instrument[715] was
attached by a twelve-inch chain to a collar round his neck, from a ring
round a vertical iron bar which had been built into the wall by the head
of his bed.[716] His right leg was secured to the frame upon which he
lay. The effect was that the patient could move up and down as far as
the ring and short chain round the upright bar permitted, but he could
not stir one foot from the wall, and could only rest lying upon his
back. “In this thraldom,” says Dr. Conolly,[717] “he had lived for
twelve years. During much of this time he is reported to have been
rational in his conversation. At length relief came, which he only lived
about a year to enjoy. It is painful to add that this long-continued
punishment had the recorded approbation of all the authorities of the
hospital. Nothing can more forcibly illustrate the hardening effect of
being habitual witnesses of cruelty, and the process which the heart of
man undergoes when allowed to exercise irresponsible power.”
The medical men were poorly paid and proportionately neglectful. At the
time of which we are speaking—the end of the eighteenth and the
beginning of the nineteenth century—the physician at Bedlam got only
£100 a year.[718] However, he kept a private asylum, and sometimes left
the public institution for months together.[719] One of the surgeons is
described as having been “generally insane and mostly drunk,” in spite
of which he was retained there for ten years.[720]
With such shameful neglect and callousness on the part of the
doctors—there appear to have been no chaplains in those days[721]—it is
not to be wondered that the unhappy patients fell entirely into the
hands of their keepers and immediate attendants, and most of these were
quite ignorant people, rendered impatient and brutal by the exasperating
ways of the demented inmates, and by their boundless power over them.
Instinctive and retaliative floggings (the third kind, alluded to on p.
149), assaults, and possibly even murders, were not uncommon, as well as
the distressing and unlimited restraints already referred to.[722] One
doctor invented and introduced a special instrument to prize open the
patients’ mouths at compulsory feeding. He mentions that, by the usual
process, teeth were apt to be broken, and some were left “without a
front tooth in either jaw.”[723]
In the eighteenth century[724]—up to 1770—and in some places, doubtless,
even to later times, the mad people were reckoned among the
“sights.”[725] The public paid[726] to go round the asylums, as they do
now to gaze upon wild beasts.[727] The baser and more mischievous among
them would irritate and purposely enrage the secured patients, as their
descendants tease caged animals to this day;[728] and thus reproduced
for their ghastly diversion “exhibitions of madness which are no longer
to be found, because they were not the simple product of malady, but of
malady aggravated by mismanagement.”
Such conduct appears to have been general in those times.[729] At
Geneva[730] some lunatics would be given grass and horrible things to
eat to amuse visitors. This also happened at the Bicêtre,[731] in
certain parts of Germany, etc.[732] “Les Fous de Charenton” became, for
a time, notorious for their plays,[733] which were presented with much
sound and fury, attracting spectators from very grotesqueness. They were
forbidden in 1811.
High walls kept things dark for years, but the light stole through in
the end, as it always will.[734] In 1793 Pinel removed the chains from
patients in the Bicêtre. At home, the York Asylum, already alluded to,
began to bear an evil reputation. In 1788 it incurred the
_Animadversions_[735] of the Rev. William Mason.[736] In the year 1791
some friends of a female patient desired to visit her, but were not
allowed, upon the plea that she was not in a suitable condition to be
seen by strangers (she probably was not!) A few weeks after this she was
reported dead.[737] The woman belonged to the Society of Friends, and
the suspicious circumstances of her incarceration caused much resentment
among the Quakers. Soon after, William Tuke resolved that they should
have a hospital of their own. The Retreat was started in the year 1792,
and its humane and enlightened methods were soon contrasted with the
barbarous and secret administration prevailing at the older institution.
But the years rolled by while patients languished and died. It was in
1813 that Samuel Tuke—a grandson of the founder of the Retreat—brought
out a little work[738] describing the system there. It “excited
universal interest, and, in fact, achieved what all the talents and
public spirit of Mason and his friends had failed to accomplish. It had
still better effects. A very inoffensive passage in this book roused, it
seems, the animosity of the physician to York Lunatic Asylum, and a
letter which this gentleman published in one of the York newspapers[739]
became the origin of a controversy among the governors of that
establishment, which terminated in August 1814, after a struggle of
nearly two years, in the complete overthrow of the old system, and the
dismission of every officer of the asylum, except the physician
himself.”[740]
The conflict was taken up by others and carried on. Towards the close of
that same year (1813), a case of alleged misconduct was brought forward
by Mr. Godfrey Higgins, a magistrate for the West Riding. “Mr. Higgins’
statement was read” (before twenty-seven governors), “after which the
accused servants of the house were called in and sworn. They denied upon
oath the truth of the charges. No other evidence was called for; nor was
any minute committed to writing of what had been sworn by the servants.
The following resolution was passed:—The governors having taken into
consideration the statements published in the York and other newspapers
respecting the treatment of William Vicars, lately a patient in this
asylum, ... are unanimously of opinion that ... he was treated with all
possible care, attention, and humanity.”[741] It was of no avail;
thirteen gentlemen of the county came forward with donations, in virtue
of which they qualified as governors. These new men brought their votes
to bear to force on an inquiry, and though the old gang of scoundrels
never got their deserts, and, to conceal their guilt, are said to have
set the premises on fire, yet they were driven out of their situations,
and soon investigation became national.
In 1814 Mr. George Rose brought in a Bill to regulate asylums, which
passed the House of Commons. But the authorities at Bedlam opposed the
measure,[742] spending over £600 in so doing. They had good cause, as we
shall see presently. The York Asylum governors—nineteen of them,
including the archbishop—sent in a petition against it; and the intrepid
Mr. Higgins sent one in its favour, signed by himself.[743] The Bill was
thrown out by the House of Lords,[744] but a committee of the House of
Commons was then appointed, and collected the inconceivable and horrible
evidence from which we have quoted. Its report was presented by Mr. Rose
in 1815,[745] and though the committee at Bedlam formally exonerated its
officials for all things they had done and neglected to do, including
even the dreadful instrument placed round Norris,[746] the unofficial
mind of the public had been roused to indignation, and many of the worst
abuses were presently remedied.
Mr. Rose died in 1818, but in the following year Mr. Wynn brought
forward another Bill, which was, however, opposed by Lord Eldon, who
observed[747] that “there could not be a more false humanity than
over-humanity with regard to persons afflicted with insanity,” a line of
argument which we shall come on again. That Bill shared the fate of its
predecessor. It was not until nine years afterwards that Mr. Gordon
secured the passing of an Act[748] to improve the asylums, in the year
1828. Though abuses continued into the middle of the nineteenth
century,[749] and many Acts of Parliament were subsequently brought
in,[750] the monstrous evils of which we have spoken continued as crimes
where previously they had been customs, and took place on a much
diminished scale.
At Lincoln Asylum,[751] about 1838, Dr. Gardner Hill removed mechanical
restraints, and Dr. Conolly[752] followed at Hanwell in the succeeding
year. In this they were, of course, opposed in the Profession,[753] but
new ideas and new conceptions were coming, which are still working in
the treatment of insanity. All along, heretofore, the Mind and the Body
had been conceived as two separate things. People had ceased to believe
in the interference of devils, but they spoke vaguely of “a mind
diseased.” There being often no physical injury that could be detected,
“the common opinion seemed to be confirmed that it” (mental disorder)
“was an incomprehensible, and consequently an incurable, malady of the
mind.”[754]
A medical writer[755] of the early nineteenth century could allude to
lectures he had attended, at which the doctor had declared that
treatment and physic were useless in a case of _furor uterinus_, because
it was a disease of the mind, not of the body. No doubt there loomed the
fear of Free Will and Theology. “... Many very able men,” says Dr.
Halliday,[756] “led away by what appeared to be the general opinion of
mankind, shrank from a strict investigation of a subject that seemed to
lead to a doubt of the immateriality of mind, a truth so evident to
their own feelings and so expressly established by divine revelation.”
It is not for us to turn aside into labyrinths, or to attempt to settle
what “mind” may mean. But we know that, to our present power of
comprehension, the mind can only function through the body. How it first
formed, and if it can yet rekindle, are vital questions which may never
be answered; at any rate they lie beyond our range.
Gradually metaphysics and moral concepts were left behind as experts
examined facts. “... Derangement,” says a nineteenth-century
writer,[757] “is no longer considered a disease of the understanding,
but of the centre of the nervous system, upon the unimpaired condition
of which the exercise of the understanding depends. The brain is at
fault and not the mind.”
“The old notion,” says Dr. Wynter,[758] “that derangement of mind may
happen without any lesion of the instrument of thought being the cause
or consequence, has long been exploded.”
The physical origin of insanity “became gradually accepted. Its mental
phenomena were more carefully observed, and its relation was established
to other mental conditions which had not hitherto been regarded as
insane in the proper sense of the word.... Hitherto the criteria of
insanity had been very rude, and the evidence was generally of a loose
and popular character; but whenever it was fully recognised that
insanity was a disease with which physicians who had studied the subject
were peculiarly conversant, expert evidence obtained increased
importance, and from that time became prominent in every case. The new
medical views of insanity were thus brought into contact with the old
narrow conceptions of the law courts, and a controversy arose in the
field of criminal law, which, in England at least, is not yet
settled.”[759]
The instinct of retaliation was not readily restrained by reasoning or
proofs of irresponsibility. In postulating freedom of choice under all
physical conditions; in assuming plenary responsibility in men and women
under all circumstances; in refusing to recognise any abnormal state
unless it were so extreme and obvious as to render the person before the
court unconscious of his actions and surroundings, the judges were
defending their own position. Thus the new theories[760] were disputed
and sneered at, and arbitrary standards as to sanity were set up at
variance with all facts and expert evidence.[761]
Some contended that the more subtle and amazing forms of madness or
abnormality perceived by the specialists were but new names for old
perversities.[762] Others averred that nothing physical ought to
exculpate. Smollett wished that all lunatics guilty of grave offences
might be subjected “to the common penalties of the law.” Upon this Mr.
Tuke observes in comment that “The entire inability to distinguish
between voluntary and involuntary acts, ... between motives and
consequences, is singularly well shown. Unfortunately it was not
peculiar to Smollett.”[763]
And I might add that this instinctive feeling continued—as everything
instinctive generally does. Turning to the work of a writer still living
(in 1908), we come upon the following: “Of late years a certain school
of thinkers[764] ... have started some theories respecting the
responsibility or irresponsibility of many dangerous criminals and
murderers, which have very properly been objected to by more practical
observers.” And the writer continues with all the sweet simplicity of
ignorance: “Even the inmates of lunatic asylums know well the
distinction between right and wrong. And it is precisely upon this
knowledge that the government and discipline of such establishments are
based. Hence no theories of criminal irresponsibility should be
permitted to relax the security and strictness of the detention of
dangerous offenders, whether sane, or partially insane, or wholly mad.
And it is important to observe that the treatment and condition even of
mad murderers should not be made attractive to others outside.” But the
hard scientific facts persisted. Injustice and cruelty, practised upon
the weak and helpless, do not, alas! and _pace_ good Mrs. Stowe, bring
down upon nations the visible wrath of God; but the manifest falseness
of the old assumptions, and the continued failure of the mediæval
methods, could not be hidden through unending years. Slowly the light of
science began to penetrate into the dark places of punishment. The
entirely mad were first rescued and treated as patients, and these now,
happily, no longer concern us; their case belongs to Medicine, not to
Criminology. With regard to the half-mad we are in a state of slow
change and transition. Their wrongs, long known to the alienists, are
being brought before the law-makers. “Crime,” says the Report of Mr.
Secretary Gladstone’s Committee,[765] “its causes and treatment, has
been the subject of much profound and scientific inquiry. Many of the
problems it presents are practically at the present time insoluble. It
may be true that some criminals are irreclaimable, just as some diseases
are incurable, and in such cases it is not unreasonable to acquiesce in
the theory that criminality is a disease and the result of physical
imperfection. But criminal anthropology as a science is in an embryo
stage....” With regard to the abnormal we are only on the threshold of
justice; a multitude of causes, theological and instinctive, prevent the
facts from being faced and known.
We may take comfort in the course of evolution; in that the violently
mad (employing the word in a wide and general sense) are no longer
exorcised and tormented; in that the eccentrically mad are no longer
burned and tortured for what was imagined against them; in that the
weak-minded and the partially deranged are being considered, with a view
to their segregation in special places apart from healthy offenders; in
that innate and absolute abnormality of emotions has been established by
the specialists upon overwhelming evidence; and that the knowledge of
this is quietly spreading, and being recognised and admitted among
educated people, throughout the civilised world.
THE END
_Printed by_ R. & R. CLARK, LIMITED, _Edinburgh_.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOOTNOTES FOR ALL CHAPTERS
-----
Footnote 1:
“In the early cuneiform writing ... the symbol for a prison is a
combination of the symbols for ‘house’ and ‘darkness.’”—Isaac Taylor,
_History of the Alphabet_, p. 21. London, 1899.
Footnote 2:
It has been said that imprisonment is not mentioned in Anglo-Saxon
laws as a punishment; it is, however, referred to in the laws of
Æthelstan thus: “For murder let a man forfeit his life, if he will
deny it and appear guilty at the threefold ordeal let him be 120
nights in prison; afterwards let his relations take him out and pay
the king 120 shillings and to his relatives the price of his
blood....” See J. Johnson, _Ecclesiastical Laws_. London, 1720. The
same king ordained that “If a thief be brought into prison that he be
40 days in prison and then let him be released thereout with cxx.
shillings and let his kindred enter into borh for him that he will
ever more desist.”—B. Thorpe, _Ancient Laws and Institutions of
England_, fol. ed. p. 85. London, 1840.
Footnote 3:
“In the reign of Henry III. imprisonment for a definite period was an
unknown punishment.”—G. J. Turner, _Select Pleas of the Forest_, p.
lxv. London, 1901.
Footnote 4:
“Imprisonment occurs in the Anglo-Saxon Laws only as a means of
temporary security.”—Pollock and Maitland, _Hist. Eng. Law_, vol. i.
p. 26. Cambridge, 1895.
Footnote 5:
“In the nature of the Saxons in the most ancient times there existed
neither a knowledge of the most high and heavenly King ... nor any
dignity of honour of any earthly king....”—W. Stubbs, _Const. Hist._
p. 49. Oxford, 1880.
Footnote 6:
_Ibid._ p. 75.
Footnote 7:
“Nihil neque publicae neque privatae rei nisi armati agunt.”—Tac.
_Germ._ xiii.
Footnote 8:
Among the Jutes, etc., see J. M. Lappenberg, _Hist. of Eng. under the
Anglo-Saxon Kings_, i. p. 97. London, 1845. The Anglo-Saxon lad came
of age at twelve; see work just quoted, p. 173, and J. Thrupp, _The
Anglo-Saxon Home_, p. 108. London, 1862.
Footnote 9:
The exceptions to this wise though primitive rule are to be found
where occasionally “God” and even “Nature” would be cited as injured
third parties, upon theological grounds. See, for instance, N.
Marshall, _Penitential Discipline of the Primitive Church_, pp. 49,
190, Oxford, 1844; and the thirteenth-century _Mirror of Justice_,
chap. xiv.
Footnote 10:
“To keep the peace is the legislator’s first object, and it is not
easy. To force the injured man or the slain man’s kinsfolk to accept a
money compensation instead of resorting to reprisals is the main aim
of the law-giver.”—F. W. Maitland, _Constitutional History of
England_, p. 4. Cambridge, 1908.
Footnote 11:
Thus in the Laws of the XII. Tables the manifest thief would be killed
if a slave, or if free become the bondman of the person robbed; if,
however, he were captured later, he had to refund double the value of
what he had taken. By the Germanic codes a thief might be instantly
chased and then hanged or decapitated, but fines for homicide would be
imposed if he were slain after an interval. Henry Maine, _Ancient
Law_, ed. of 1906, pp. 387, 388.
Footnote 12:
For instance, Exodus xxi. 23, 24, 25.
Footnote 13:
See E. Westermarck, _Moral Ideas_, vol. i. p. 178. London, 1906.
Footnote 14:
At first it was not always necessary to accept the blood-fine. See E.
W. Robertson, _Scotland under her Early Kings_, p. 287, Edinburgh,
1862, on this point; and as to the treatment of female relatives, see
J. Thrupp, _Anglo-Saxon Home_, p. 151.
Footnote 15:
In the seventh century a law of Ine ordained that “If any one takes
revenge before he demands justice, let him give up what he has taken
to himself and pay the damage done and make bōt with xxx.
shillings.”—Thorpe, _Ancient Laws and Institutions_, fol. ed. p. 48.
Footnote 16:
“The penal law of ancient communities is not a law of crimes; it is a
law of wrongs, or, to use the English technical word, of torts. The
person injured proceeds against the wrongdoer by an ordinary civil
action, and recovers compensation in the shape of money damages if he
succeeds.”—Maine, _Ancient Law_, p. 379.
Footnote 17:
“It is curious to observe how little the men of primitive times were
troubled with these scruples (as to the degree of moral guilt to be
ascribed to the wrongdoer), how completely they were persuaded that
the impulses of the wronged person were the proper measure of the
vengeance he was entitled to exact, and how literally they imitated
the rise and fall of his passions in fixing their scale of
punishment.”—Maine, _Ancient Law_, p. 389.
Footnote 18:
“Every man’s life had its value, and according to that valuation the
value of his oath in a court of justice varied, and offences against
his person and protection were atoned for.”—Stubbs, _Const. Hist._ i.
p. 188.
Footnote 19:
A front tooth usually cost six shillings; in Alfred’s time, eight.
Footnote 20:
Laws of Æthelbert. If a freeman rob the king let him pay a forfeiture
ninefold. If a freeman rob a freeman let him make threefold
satisfaction.—J. Johnson, _Ecc. Laws_.
Footnote 21:
For a collection of the various codes and for examples of their
amazing minuteness as to all possible injuries, see F. Lindenbrog,
_Codex legum antiquarum_, pp. 474, 498, etc. Frankfort, 1613.
Footnote 22:
The Mercian pound was equal to 60 scillings, the Wessex to 48; see H.
A. Grueber, _Handbook of the Coins_, p. ix. London, 1899.
Footnote 23:
Stubbs, _Const. Hist._ i. p. 109.
Footnote 24:
Thorpe, fol. ed. p. 80.
Footnote 25:
W. S. Holdsworth, _History of English Law_, p. 13. London, 1903.
Footnote 26:
J. M. Kemble, _The Saxons in England_, i. p. 149. London, 1876.
Footnote 27:
R. Ruding, _Annals of the Coinage_, p. 110. London, 1840.
Footnote 28:
F. W. Maitland, _Domesday Book_, p. 44. Cambridge, 1897.
Footnote 29:
“It was at least theoretically possible down to the middle of the
tenth century for a man-slayer to elect to bear the feud of the
kindred. His own kindred, however, might avoid any share in the feud
by disclaiming him; any of them who maintained him after this, as well
as any of the avenging kinsfolk who meddled with any but the actual
wrongdoer, was deemed a foe to the king.”—Pollock and Maitland,
_Hist._ ed. of 1898, i. 48.
Footnote 30:
When a ceorl had been frequently accused, if afterwards he were
apprehended he might lose a hand or a foot.—Laws of Ine. R Schmidt,
_Gesetze_, p. 29. Leipzig, 1858.
Footnote 31:
See Laws of Ine, sect. 12. Thorpe, fol. ed. p. 49.
Footnote 32:
Pollock and Maitland, _Hist._ i. 476 and ii. 451, ed. of 1898.
Footnote 33:
J. Thrupp, _Anglo-Saxon Home_, p. 145.
Footnote 34:
G. G. Coulton, _Chaucer and His England_, p. 293. London, 1908.
Footnote 35:
Pollock and Maitland, i. 478, ii. 450.
Footnote 36:
And see _Early Assize Rolls for the County of Northumberland_, pp.
xviii., xix., etc. Durham, Surtees Society, 1891.
Footnote 37:
Stubbs, _Const. Hist._ p. 89.
Footnote 38:
Dooms of Alfred, sect. 24. “If any one steal another’s ox and slay or
sell it, let him give two for it, and four sheep for one. If he have
not what he may give be he himself sold for the cattle.”—Thorpe,
_Laws_, fol. ed. p. 23. Compare Exodus xxii. 3; Pollock and Maitland,
_Hist._, ed. 1895, vol. ii. 514.
Footnote 39:
Pollock and Maitland, ii. p. 11.
Footnote 40:
The intertribal wars at one time “filled the foreign markets with
English slaves,” says J. R. Green, relating the well-known story of
Pope Gregory.—_Hist. Eng. People_, i. 37. London, 1881.
Footnote 41:
Hovenden. H. T. Riley’s ed. i. p. 143. London, 1853.
Footnote 42:
A vigorous slave trade was carried on just prior to the
Conquest.—Thrupp, _Anglo-Saxon Home_, p. 130.
Footnote 43:
Pollock and Maitland, _Hist._ i. p. 12. Cambridge, 1895.
Footnote 44:
Law of Ine, seventh century. “If any one sell his countryman bound or
free, though he be guilty, over sea, let him pay for him according to
his wer.”—Stubbs, _Charters_, p. 61. Oxford, 1884.
Law of Æthelred. “Christian men and condemned persons are not to be
sold out of the country, at least not into heathen nations.”—Thorpe,
fol. ed. p. 135.
A law of William I. was to the same effect.—R. Schmidt, _Gesetze_, p.
347.
Footnote 45:
F. W. Maitland, _Domesday Book_, p. 31.
Footnote 46:
Æthelbert. “If any one slay a ceorl’s hlf-æta, let him make bōt with
vi. shillings.”—Thorpe, fol. ed. p. 3.
Footnote 47:
Thorpe, 8vo ed. i. p. 626.
Footnote 48:
Thrupp, _Anglo-Saxon Home_, p. 127.
Footnote 49:
See _Theodori liber poenitentialis_. Thorpe, fol. ed. p. 288.
_Poenitentiale Ecberti_, lib. ii. 3. Thorpe, p. 368.
Footnote 50:
Compare Exodus xxi. 20, 21; “And if a man smite his servant, or his
maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely
punished.
“Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be
punished: for he is his money.”
Footnote 51:
Stubbs, _Const. Hist._ p. 89.
Footnote 52:
Omne damnum quod servus fecerit, dominus emendet.—Thorpe, fol. ed. p.
11.
Footnote 53:
Maitland, _Domesday Book_, p. 32.
Footnote 54:
Or he might be scourged thrice, _temp._ Æthelstan. See Thorpe, fol.
ed. p. 88.
Footnote 55:
Laws of Æthelred. D. Wilkins, _Leges Anglo-Saxonicae_, p. 103. London,
1721.
Footnote 56:
By Alfred’s Dooms rape on a ceorl’s female slave was punished by a
five-shilling bōt to the ceorl; if a theow committed the offence, he
might be emasculated.—Thorpe, fol. ed. p. 35.
Footnote 57:
Stubbs, _Const. Hist._ i. p. 25.
Footnote 58:
Thrupp, _Anglo-Saxon Home_, p. 131.
Footnote 59:
William Andrews, _Old-Time Punishments_, p. 146. Hull, 1890.
Footnote 60:
Thrupp, _Anglo-Saxon Home_, p. 144.
Footnote 61:
E. W. Robertson, _Scotland_, ii. p. 450.
Footnote 62:
Pollock and Maitland, _Hist._ ed. 1898, ii. p. 450.
Footnote 63:
See Thorpe, 8vo ed. vol. i. p. 579: “Si quis dominum suum occidet,”
etc.
Footnote 64:
F. Lindenbrog, _Codex legum antiquarum_, p. 498.
Footnote 65:
For similar laws in ancient Wales and eighteenth-century America,
etc., see Westermarck, _Moral Ideas_, i. p. 518.
Footnote 66:
“Imprisonment,” say Pollock and Maitland, “would have been regarded in
those old times as a useless punishment; it does not” (as it was then
employed and understood) “satisfy revenge, it keeps the criminal idle,
and do what we may it is costly.”—_Hist. Eng. Law_, ed. of 1895, vol.
ii. p. 514.
Footnote 67:
Grant Allen, _Anglo-Saxon Britain_, p. 47.
Footnote 68:
E. W. Robertson, _Scotland_, p. 295.
Footnote 69:
Laws of Ine. To fight in the king’s house rendered the offender liable
to be put to death.—J. Johnson.
Laws of Alfred. To fight in the presence of an archbishop meant a fine
of 150 shillings.—Thorpe, p. 32.
To fight in the house of a common man meant a mulct of thirty
shillings, and six shillings to the ceorl.—J. Johnson.
Footnote 70:
Thrupp, _Anglo-Saxon Home_, p. 148.
Footnote 71:
See example, _temp._ Cnut. Thorpe, fol. ed. p. 174.
Footnote 72:
J. Johnson, _Ecc. Laws_.
Footnote 73:
Thorpe, fol. ed. p. 174.
Footnote 74:
J. Johnson, _Ecc. Laws_.
Footnote 75:
Thorpe, Laws of Cnut, fol. ed. p. 169.
Footnote 76:
_Ibid._ p 213.
Footnote 77:
See _Saxon Chronicle_, J. Ingram’s ed. p. 295. London, 1823.
Footnote 78:
Stubbs, _Const. Hist._ i. p. 204.
Footnote 79:
Maitland, _Domesday Book_, p. 33.
Footnote 80:
Often of death for serious offences, but the prisoner’s goods were
forfeited for felony; hence it was to the profit of the government to
have many felonies. See F. W. Maitland, _Const. Hist. Eng._ p. 111,
and J. Britton, Nichols’ ed. p. 35. Oxford, 1855.
Footnote 81:
“To them” (the subject people) “a new tribunal seemed only a new
torment.”—L. O. Pike, _Hist. Crime_, i. 134. London, 1873.
Footnote 82:
The hundreds were liable to be fined for undetected murders—as
villages now are in India—and also officers for neglect of duty; see
T. Madox, _History and Antiquities of the Exchequer_, chap. xiv. p.
539, etc. London, 1769. J. Britton, F. M. Nichols’ ed. p. 138. This
liability was abolished in the reign of Edward III.; see W. S.
Holdsworth, _Hist._ p. 8.
Footnote 83:
T. Madox, _Hist. Exch._ i. p. 425, etc.
Footnote 84:
Maitland, _Domesday Book_, p. 52.
Footnote 85:
_Infangthef_, the right to hang a thief, “hand having and back
bearing.” _Utfangthef_, the right to punish a thief beyond the
particular boundary.
Footnote 86:
Holdsworth, _Hist._ p. ii.; and see Stubbs, _Const. Hist._ i. 452,
453, etc.
Footnote 87:
“The lord exercised ... jurisdiction in civil and criminal suits
which, with all the profits—for in early times the pecuniary interests
of justice formed no small part of the advantages of judicial
power—was conferred on him by the original gift.”—Stubbs, _Const.
Hist._ i. p. 102, and Holdsworth, 13, 14.
Footnote 88:
See Maitland, _Domesday Book_, p. 33.
Footnote 89:
_Ibid._ p. 83.
Footnote 90:
“So intimate is the connection of judicature with finance under the
Norman kings, that we scarcely need the comment of the historian to
guide us to the conclusion that it was mainly for the sake of the
profits that justice was administered at all.”—Stubbs, _Const. Hist._
i. p. 438.
Footnote 91:
After Henry II. “a crime is no longer regarded as a matter merely
between the criminal and those who have directly suffered by his
crime; it is a wrong against the nation.”—Maitland, _Const. Hist._ p.
109, ed. of 1898.
Footnote 92:
L. O. Pike, _History of Crime in England_, i. p. 130.
Footnote 93:
In the period of the Civil War, however, the barons had made their
castles robbers’ caves, from which they raided the unhappy English.
Vide _The Saxon Chronicle_ for the year 1137.
Footnote 94:
See Stubbs, _Charters_, p. 143.
Footnote 95:
The expenses for gaols at Canterbury, Rochester, Huntingdon,
Cambridge, Salisbury, Malmesbury, Aylesbury, and Oxford are detailed
in the Roll of 1166.
Footnote 96:
See John Lingard, _Hist. Eng._ ii. p. 619. London, 1849.
Footnote 97:
Pike, _Hist._ i. p. 130.
Footnote 98:
“Carcer ad continendos et non ad puniendos habere debeat.”—_De
Legibus_, lib. iii. cap. vi. f. 105.
Footnote 99:
F. M. Nichols’ ed. p. 44.
Footnote 100:
And see 5 Hen. IV. c. 10.
Footnote 101:
In 1295 a law was passed by which a man should no longer suffer death
or mutilation for prison-breaking alone, unless his crime would have
been so punished upon conviction. See statute, De Fragentibus
Prisonam, 23 Edward I., Record Commission. _Statutes of the Realm_,
vol. i. London, 1810.
Footnote 102:
W. J. Whittaker’s ed. p. 52.
Footnote 103:
In the reign of Henry III. the judges set forth every seven
years.—Pike, _Hist. Crime_, p. 135; and see G. J. Turner, _Pleas of
the Forest_, p. xv. By 13 Ed. I. assizes were to be held three times a
year at most. In the early part of the nineteenth century the gaols in
the provinces were delivered only twice a year. See Blackstone,
_Commentaries_, bk. iv. chap. xix.; J. Stewart’s ed. p. 352. London,
1854. W. Crawford’s remarks in his _Penitentiaries of the United
States_, p. 37. London, printed for the House of Commons, 1834.
Footnote 104:
The gaol was his pledge or security that could find (or was allowed)
none.—Glanville, J. Beames’ ed. pp. 346, 348. London, 1812. For
details as to who were or who were not replevisable in the thirteenth
century, see 3 Ed. I. c. 15 and 27 Ed. I. c. 3.
Footnote 105:
F. M. Nichols’ ed. p. 46.
Footnote 106:
Fourpence is mentioned as the gaoler’s fee in the _Liber Albus_ (early
fifteenth century), H. T. Riley’s ed. p. 448. London, 1861.
Footnote 107:
On this point see F. A. Gasquet, _Henry VIII. and the English
Monasteries_, p. 4. London, 1906.
Footnote 108:
Lib. iii. f. 137.
Footnote 109:
Nichols’ ed. p. 35.
Footnote 110:
See illustration given in Besant, _Mediæval London_, p. 349. 1906.
Footnote 111:
“If, however, they refused to plead, they would be pinioned down on
the bare ground and fed upon bread and dirty water; but they were not
to eat on the day they drank, or drink on the day they ate,
etc.”—Nichols’ ed. p. 26.
Footnote 112:
“Vix permittitur heredibus quod vivant.”—_De Legibus_, lib. iii. f.
118.
Footnote 113:
_Temp._ Henry I., see W. Dugdale, _Origines Juridiciales_. London,
1680.
Richard, see J. F. Stephen, _Hist. Crim. Law_, i. p. 458. London,
1883.
Henry III., see W. Page, _Early Assize Rolls_, p. xviii. etc.
Footnote 114:
By the Assize of Northampton. See Stubbs, _Const. Hist._ i. p. 545.
Footnote 115:
2 Hen. III., Carta de Foresta; and also 9 Hen. III. c. 10: “No man
henceforth shall lose either life or member for killing our deer.”
Footnote 116:
_Sax. Chron._, Ingram’s ed. p. 266.
_Ibid._ p. 295.
_Mirror of Justice_, Whittaker’s ed. p. 141.
Footnote 117:
J. C. Robertson, _Materials for the History of Thomas Becket_, vol. i.
p. 156. London, 1875. Referred to by Stephen, _Hist. Crim. Law_, i. p.
79.
Footnote 118:
_Hist. Eng. Law_, ii. p. 515.
Footnote 119:
_Ibid._ ii. p. 516.
Footnote 120:
For example, a fine of one mark (13_s._ 4_d._) for rape.
Footnote 121:
See _Mirror of Justice_, Whittaker’s ed., Introduction, pp. xxiv.,
xxxv., and 1st ed. iii. c. 7.
Holdsworth, _Hist. Eng. Law_, p. 39.
W. Page, _Early Assize Rolls_, p. xx.
Footnote 122:
Of robbery by the judges, see Lingard, _Hist._ ii. p. 217.
Footnote 123:
For instance, at Northampton in 1323; see Coulton, _Chaucer and his
England_, p. 284.
Footnote 124:
Pike, _Hist. Crime_, i. p. 288.
Footnote 125:
Riley’s ed. p. 448.
Footnote 126:
See Pike, _Hist. Crime_, i. p. 427.
Footnote 127:
Maitland, _Const. Hist._ p. 221, ed. 1908.
Footnote 128:
22 Hen. VIII. c. 9.
Footnote 129:
W. Besant, _Tudors_, p. 380. London, 1904; and see 25 Hen. VIII. c.
14.
Footnote 130:
J. F. Stephen, _Hist. Crim. Law_, p. 477.
Footnote 131:
A man was boiled to death in 1531; a woman was burnt in 1571, and in
1575.—Holinshed, _Chron._ pp. 926, 1226, 1262.
Footnote 132:
Besant, _Tudors_, p. 379.
Footnote 133:
J. F. Stephen, _Hist. Crim. Law_, p. 468.
Footnote 134:
Besant, _Tudors_, p. 380.
Footnote 135:
W. Andrews, _Old-Time Punishments_, p. 92.
Footnote 136:
Henry Brinklow’s _Complaynt of Roderwyck Mors_, J. M. Cowper’s ed.
London, E. E. T. Society, 1874.
Footnote 137:
See Holinshed, _Chronicles_, pp. 1081, 1082.
J. Wilkes, _Enc. Londinensis_, iii. p. 891. London, 1810.
E. C. S. Gibson, _Life of John Howard_, p. 47. London, 1901.
Footnote 138:
See Besant, _Tudors_, p. 387.
Footnote 139:
39 Eliz. 4 and 5.
Footnote 140:
7 Jac. I. c. 4.
Footnote 141:
Departmental Committee on Prisons. _Minutes of Evidence_, Appendix ii.
p. 457. London, 1895.
Footnote 142:
As very early in the sixteenth century; see 19 Hen. VII. c. 10.
Footnote 143:
See John Brown, _John Bunyan, His Life and Times_, pp. 169, 182, etc.
Footnote 144:
_The West answering the North: Relation of the Sufferings of George
Fox, Edw. Pyot, and William Salt_, p. 34. Printed 1657.
Footnote 145:
As to the pits and dungeons of an old English prison, see Charles
Creighton, _History of the Epidemics in Britain_, p. 386. Cambridge,
1891.
Footnote 146:
19 Car. II. c. 4.
Footnote 147:
_The State of the Prisons_, pp. 8 and 9. Warrington, 1780.
Footnote 148:
Many prisons had no yards or courts of any kind. See J. B. Bailey,
_The Condition of the Gaols as described by John Howard_, chap. ii.
London, 1884.
Footnote 149:
_Ibid._ p. 16.
Footnote 150:
See E. F. Du Cane, _Punishment and Prevention of Crime_, chap. iii. p.
43, etc. London, 1885.
Footnote 151:
_Hall’s Chronicle_, p. 632, ed. of 1809.
Footnote 152:
P. 353. London, 1730.
Footnote 153:
Creighton, _Epidemics_, chap. vii. p. 383.
Footnote 154:
Vol. ii. p. 48. London, 1827.
Footnote 155:
_State of the Prisons_, p. 10, ed. of 1780.
Footnote 156:
_Ibid._ p. 13.
Footnote 157:
_Ibid._ p. 12.
Footnote 158:
There were always a few poor creatures who, although sentenced to
transportation, were left behind to remain in prison, a fate worse
than exile and perhaps worse than death. See Dept. Com., 1895,
Appendix, p. 459.
Footnote 159:
“... Of the 160 offences referred to by Blackstone as punishable by
death, four-fifths had been made so during the reigns of the first
three Georges.”—J. A. M. Irvine, _Chambers’s Encyclopædia_, ii. p.
743, art. “Capital Punishment.” London, 1888.
Footnote 160:
James Mackintosh, _Miscellaneous Works_, p. 718. Speech on the state
of the Criminal Law, House of Commons, 2nd March 1819. London, 1851.
Footnote 161:
“The anecdotes which I have heard of this shameful and injurious
facility I am almost ashamed to repeat. Mr. Burke once told me that on
a certain occasion when he was leaving the House one of the messengers
called him back, and, on his saying that he was going on urgent
business, replied: ‘Oh, it will not keep you a single moment; it is
only a capital felony without benefit of clergy.’”—Mackintosh,
_Miscellaneous Works_, p. 718.
Footnote 162:
Mackintosh, _Miscellaneous Works_, p. 718.
Footnote 163:
There grew up, as an eminent judge of those days has declared, “a
general confederacy of prosecutors, witnesses, counsel, juries,
judges, and the advisers of the Crown, to prevent the execution of the
criminal law.”—Sir William Grant, quoted by Mackintosh, p. 719.
Footnote 164:
Irvine in _Chambers’s Encyclopædia_, ii. p. 743.
Footnote 165:
Mackintosh, p. 718.
Footnote 166:
Reprinted in the _Times_, 18th January 1901.
Footnote 167:
Du Cane, _Crime_, pp. 35, 36.
Footnote 168:
Howard, _State of the Prisons_, p. 22.
Footnote 169:
See 8 & 9 Will. III. c. 27, A.D. 1697.
Footnote 170:
See, for instance, the removal of Governor Bambridge by 2 Geo. II. c.
32.
T. Bird, _Letters from the Shades_. London, 1729.
_Re_ Governor Huggins, etc., see _Report of a Committee of the House
of Commons_, pp. 25, 26, 27. London, 1729.
Footnote 171:
Gaol fees were abolished in 1774 by 14 Geo. III. c. 20.
Footnote 172:
J. M. D. Meiklejohn, _Hist. Eng._ ii. p. 276. London, 1890.
Footnote 173:
See _The Tryal of William Acton, Deputy-Keeper of the Marshalsea
Prison_, p. 4, etc. London, 1729.
And also _Cases in Parliament_, 1684–1737. _British Museum_, 515, l. 5
(39), _re_ Bambridge, etc.
Footnote 174:
Howard, p. 17.
Footnote 175:
_Tryal of Acton_, p. 5.
Footnote 176:
See Murray, _English Dictionary_, under “Bull,” iv. B.
Footnote 177:
See _Report of the Committee of 1729_, p. 9. _Brit. Mus. Cat._ 522, m.
9 (28).
Footnote 178:
There were seven trials for murder in 1730.—Du Cane, p. 36.
Footnote 179:
The old-time prisoners depended mainly upon their friends and upon
outside charity for their sustenance (_vide_ Britton; Bracton, lib.
iii., etc.). After the reign of Elizabeth they were supposed to
receive 1_d._ or 2_d._ a day, or seven to eight ounces of bread. (Du
Cane, p. 40.)
From 1759, by 32 Geo. II. c. 28, each debtor was ordered to receive
2_s._ 4_d._ a week from his detaining creditor, but Howard found (p.
6) that, in practice, they could not get it, and numbers actually
starved.
Footnote 180:
By an Act passed in 1784 (24 Geo. III. c. 54) the gaolers were to
receive payment as compensation for the loss of their former profits
made out of alcohol, which they were thereby forbidden to sell to
prisoners from the year 1785.
Footnote 181:
Howard, p. 16.
Footnote 182:
_Report of the Committee of 1729_, p. 2.
Footnote 183:
Howard, p. 5.
Footnote 184:
Mayhew and Binny, “Criminal Prisons of London” (quoting from the
_Fifth Annual Report of the Prison Discipline Society_), p. 97.
London, 1862.
Footnote 185:
Du Cane, p. 43.
Footnote 186:
London prisons (_British Museum Catalogue_, 6056, b. 74), bound
pamphlets, p. x. London, 1789.
Footnote 187:
Du Cane, p. 41, etc.
Footnote 188:
E. B. Tylor in _Ency. Brit._ ninth ed. art. “Ordeal.”
Footnote 189:
For account of the elaborate ritual, see W. Besant, _Mediæval London_,
vol. ii. chap. vi.
W. Dugdale, _Origines Juridiciales_, chap. xxix.
Footnote 190:
Stubbs, _Charters_, p. 71.
Footnote 191:
Besant, _Mediæval London_, ii. p. 193.
Footnote 192:
Thorpe, fol. ed. p. 517.
Footnote 193:
Glanville, J. Beames’ ed. p. 350, note.
Footnote 194:
Maitland, _Const. Hist._ p. 128.
Footnote 195:
Reeves, _Hist. Eng. Law_, i. p. 234. London, 1860.
Footnote 196:
Pike, _Hist. Crime_, p. 131.
Footnote 197:
Madox, _Hist. Exchequer_, i. p. 546.
Footnote 198:
_Ency. Brit._ art. “Ordeal,” p. 820, ninth ed.
Footnote 199:
E. A. Freeman, _History of the Reign of William Rufus_, i. pp. 156,
157. London, 1882.
Footnote 200:
P. Labbé, _Sacrorum Conciliorum_, tom. xxii. p. 1007. Venice, 1778.
Footnote 201:
Stubbs, _Charters_, p. 25.
Footnote 202:
Stubbs, _Const. Hist._ i. 314.
Footnote 203:
Unless he went to the ordeal, or, in a later period, to a jury. See W.
Forsyth, _History of Trial by Jury_, p. 202. London, 1852. Twiss’s
Bracton, ii. 403.
Footnote 204:
Peers, on account of their position, and citizens of London, on
account of their supposably peaceful avocations and by charter, were
exempt from having to accept a challenge.—Blackstone, _Commentaries_,
lib. iv.
Footnote 205:
The loss of certain teeth was looked upon as a handicap—the peasant
fighters made a horrible use of them. _Vide_ H. C. Lea, _Superstition
and Force_, p. 131. Philadelphia, 1878.
Footnote 206:
Lingard, _Hist. Eng._ ii. p. 224.
Footnote 207:
Reeves, _Hist._ i. p. 61.
Footnote 208:
Lingard, ii. p. 222.
Footnote 209:
Besant, _Mediæval London_, ii. p. 198.
Footnote 210:
_Ibid._ p. 196.
Footnote 211:
Twiss’s Bracton, ii. p. 405. London, 1879.
Footnote 212:
Lingard, ii. p. 223.
Footnote 213:
Lingard, _Hist._ p. 224.
Footnote 214:
Blackstone, bk. iv., Sharswood’s ed. ii. p. 348. Philadelphia, 1878.
Footnote 215:
Bracton, Twiss’s ed. p. 405.
Footnote 216:
It grew to be condemned by the Church. See, for instance, _C.
Valentinum_, iii. c. 12, held A.D. 855.
Footnote 217:
Unhappily to be succeeded by a dreadful revival of torture all over
Europe, where it was in full blast in the fourteenth century, and in
England from 1468. Having abandoned supernatural means of extracting
men’s secrets, Church and State made ruthless and pitiless use of more
material methods. The Inquisition took up torture, and the custom
spread to the lay courts towards the end of the thirteenth century.
Consult, for instances, Lea, _Superstition and Force_, pp. 421, 458;
Maitland, _Const. Hist._ p. 221; Lea, _History of the Inquisition in
the Middle Ages_, i. p. 423, etc. New York, 1906.
Footnote 218:
Barnewall and Alderson, _Report of Cases_, i, pp. 405, 426, etc.
London, 1818.
Footnote 219:
59 Geo. III. c. 46.
Footnote 220:
See, for instance, Westermarck, _Moral Ideas_, ii. 628 seq.
Footnote 221:
J. Bingham, _Antiquities of the Christian Church_, iii. p. 203.
Oxford, 1855.
Footnote 222:
_Ibid._ p. 204.
Footnote 223:
_Ibid._ pp. 205, 217.
Footnote 224:
_Ibid._ p. 213.
Footnote 225:
H. H. Milman, _History of Latin Christianity_, ii. p. 59. London,
1864.
Footnote 226:
Bingham, iii. pp. 209, 211.
Footnote 227:
By the Dooms of Alfred there was but a three days’ sanctuary in a
mynster-ham. A fugitive was not to be dragged from a church for seven
days, though none were to bring him any food the while.—Thorpe, fol.
ed. pp. 27, 28, 29. If he delivered up his weapons, however, it
appears he might dwell in safety for thirty days, while his relations
were got together to ransom him.—Thorpe, p. 29; Reeves, i. p. 32. On
this thirty days’ refuge allowed in the early Church, see Bingham,
iii. p. 207. A deliberate murderer might be plucked from the altar,
just as by Hebrew law.—Thorpe, p. 27.
Footnote 228:
_Concilium Aurelianse_, Labbé, tom. viii. p. 350.
Footnote 229:
J. L. Mosheim, _Ecc. Hist._ i. p. 461. London, 1863.
Footnote 230:
Migne, _Patrologiae_, tom. 216; “Regni Carraclae,” p. 1255.
Footnote 231:
Bingham, iii. p. 214.
Footnote 232:
A. Friedberg (_Decretal Gregor. IX._ lib. iii. tit. xlix. cap. vi.),
_Decretalium Collectiones_, ii. pp. 655, 656. Leipzig, 1881.
Footnote 233:
John Johnson, _Ecc. Laws_, quoting Spelman, ii. p. 305.
Footnote 234:
The Statute 9 Ed. II. c. 10 (1315) is also to this effect.
Footnote 235:
Besant, _Mediæval London_, p. 201.
Footnote 236:
Besant, _Mediæval London_, p. 212.
Footnote 237:
Frequently Dover, where numbers congregated awaiting shipment. See
Pike, _Hist. Crime_, i. p. 232.
Footnote 238:
Britton, lib. i. ch. xvii.
Footnote 239:
And see 9 Ed. II. c. 10: “They that abjure the realm shall be in Peace
so long as they be in Church or Highway.”
Footnote 240:
Blackstone, _Commentaries_, bk. iv., Sharswood’s ed. ii. p. 332.
Philadelphia, 1878.
Footnote 241:
22 Hen. VIII. c. 14.
Footnote 242:
As to branding, _vide_ 21 Hen. VIII. c. 2.
Footnote 243:
A. P. Stanley, _Westminster Abbey_, p. 346. London, 1882.
Footnote 244:
Besant, _Mediæval London_, p. 202.
Footnote 245:
_Ibid._ p. 206.
Footnote 246:
Bingham, iii. p. 215.
Footnote 247:
Besant, p. 208.
Footnote 248:
Stanley, p. 346.
Footnote 249:
Besant, _Mediæval London_, p. 212.
Footnote 250:
26 Hen. VIII. c. 13.
Footnote 251:
27 Hen. VIII. c. 19.
Footnote 252:
32 Hen. VIII. c. 12.
Footnote 253:
Stanley, p. 352.
Footnote 254:
1 Jac. I. c. 25, s. 34.
Footnote 255:
21 Jac. I. c. 28, s. 7.
Footnote 256:
8 & 9 Will. III. c. 27, s. 15.
Footnote 257:
9 Geo. I. c. 28.
Footnote 258:
11 Geo. I. c. 22.
Footnote 259:
_Ency. Brit._ art. “Wager of Law.”
Footnote 260:
Lea, _Superstition and Force_, p. 23.
Footnote 261:
_Ibid._ p. 21.
Footnote 262:
_C. Valentinum_, iii. c. xi., A.D. 855.
Footnote 263:
Forsyth, p. 76.
Footnote 264:
Reeves, _Hist._ i. p. 33.
Footnote 265:
Holdsworth, _Hist._ i. p. 138.
Footnote 266:
Reeves, p. 33.
Footnote 267:
Holdsworth, p. 139.
Footnote 268:
Lea, _Superstition_, pp. 66, 81.
Footnote 269:
Holdsworth, _Hist._ i. p. 138.
Footnote 270:
Lea, p. 35.
Footnote 271:
_Ibid._ p. 33.
Footnote 272:
_Ibid._ p. 64.
Footnote 273:
3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 42, s. 13.
Footnote 274:
S. Cheetham, _History of the Christian Church during the First Six
Centuries_, p. 171. London, 1894.
Footnote 275:
Stubbs, _Const. Hist._ i. p. 267.
Footnote 276:
1 Corinthians vi.
Footnote 277:
In A.D. 341 by the eleventh and twelfth Canons of the Council of
Antioch; in 397 by the ninth Canon of the Third Council of Carthage;
and in 451 by the ninth Canon of the Council of Chalcedon.
Footnote 278:
Lingard, _Hist._ ii. p. 120.
Footnote 279:
Cheetham, p. 171.
Footnote 280:
H. C. Lea, _History of the Inquisition in the Middle Ages_, i. p. 309.
New York, 1906.
Footnote 281:
Canons of Councils, Papal Decrees, and the many Collections.
Footnote 282:
See Lingard, ii. 126.
After the appearance of the Collection of Ivo of Chartres (_b._ 1035,
_d._ 1115),[283] and still more upon the compilation of Gratian’s
Decretals (A.D. 1151), they began to rival, if not surpass, the
Secular Courts in reputation and influence.[284] The Courts Christian
were the defenders of dogma; in those times, without right believing
nothing else profited. The Church Courts also enforced Christian
morality. “The bishops,” says Archdeacon Cheetham,[285] “took
cognizance, as was natural, of matters which were rather offences
against the moral law than against the State, and sometimes succeeded
in overawing even high-placed offenders.” “The doctrine of penance,”
says Mr. Thrupp, “dealt with a series of immoralities which the laws
disregarded.”[286]
J. Johnson, _Laws and Canons_, ii. p. 189, note F., ed. 1851.
N. Marshall, _Penitential Discipline_, p. 136.
Footnote 283:
Stubbs, _Charters_, p. 136.
Footnote 284:
Lingard, _Hist._ ii. p. 126.
Footnote 285:
_History of the Christian Church_, p. 171.
Footnote 286:
_Anglo-Saxon Home_, p. 254.
Footnote 287:
Lea, _Inquisition in the Middle Ages_, i. p. 312.
Footnote 288:
They would be brought before the Court by its apparitors, of whom
there were many; citations were not to be made through the vicars,
rectors, or parish priests, lest the secrecy of the confessional
should become mistrusted and the people cease to confess their
sins.—_Vide_ Archbishop Stratford, A.D. 1342, _C. Lond._ Can. 8. J.
Johnson, _Laws and Canons_, ii. p. 371. Chaucer has given us a
specimen of one of those “moral” agents in his account of the
_sumptnour_ or _summoner_.
Footnote 289:
As usual, blackmailing was not infrequently resorted to. _Vide_ H. W.
C. Davis, _England under Normans and Angevins_, p. 209. London, 1909.
Footnote 290:
See S. Pegge, _Life of Bishop Grosseteste_, p. 183.
Footnote 291:
S. Pegge, _Life of Bishop Grosseteste_, p. 46.
Footnote 292:
Some years later Archbishop Boniface, in his Constitutions, declared
(17) that the State must not interfere with moral inquisitions. _Vide_
J. Johnson, _Laws and Canons_, ii. p. 205, ed. 1851; and observe “Note
on Anselm’s Canons,” p. 28 of the same volume.
Footnote 293:
The visitations of the archdeacons were highly unpopular, creating any
number of spies and informers; see _Ecclesiastical Courts Commission_,
p. xxiv. London, 1883.
Footnote 294:
1 Cor. vi. 3.
Footnote 295:
_Ibid._ 2.
Footnote 296:
Rufinus, _Hist. Ecc._ lib. i. cap. ii. p. 184, ed. of Basel. 1611.
Footnote 297:
On the packing and intimidating of juries until, as Wolsey observed,
“they would find Abel guilty for the murder of Cain,” see W. Eden
(Lord Auckland), _Principles of Penal Law_, p. 176. London, 1771.
Footnote 298:
H. C. Lea, _Studies in Church History_, p. 171. Philadelphia, 1869.
Footnote 299:
_C. Agathense_, c. 32.
Footnote 300:
_C. Epaonense_, c. 11.
Footnote 301:
The same was also referred to by the eighteenth Canon of the Council
of Verneuil about 755.
Footnote 302:
_C. Matisconense_, i. c. 7.
Footnote 303:
_C. Matisconense_, i. c. 8.
Footnote 304:
_C. Aurelian_, iii. c. 32.
Footnote 305:
_C. Parisiense_, v. c. 4.
Footnote 306:
_Gregor. I._ lib. vi. Epis. xi.
Footnote 307:
Haddan and Stubbs, _Councils and Ecclesiastical Documents_, i. p. 133.
_Canones Wallici_, c. 40 (37). Oxford, 1869.
Footnote 308:
Lea, _Studies_, p. 178.
Footnote 309:
Lea, _Studies_, p. 179.
Footnote 310:
_Ibid._ p. 182.
Footnote 311:
Epis. xcvii. 70. Migne, _Patrologiae_, tom. 119, p. 1006.
Footnote 312:
_C. Ravennense_, c. 4.
Footnote 313:
For instance, by Charlemagne in 789 and at the Synod of Bamberg A.D.
1491; _vide_ Lea, _Studies_, pp. 178, 192, 196.
Footnote 314:
_Privilegia Clericorum, Constitutio Frederici Imperitoris_, p. iii.
_B. M. Cat._ i. a. 6515, _Constitutio Caroli_, 1498.
Footnote 315:
G. H. Pertz, _Monumenta Germaniae Legum_, tom. ii. p. 244. Hanover,
1837.
Lea, _Studies_, pp. 191, 196.
Footnote 316:
_Ibid._ pp. 191, 192.
Footnote 317:
P. F. Lecourayer, _Histoire du Concile de Trente_, tom. ii. p. 658;
and see p. 585, etc. 1736.
Footnote 318:
For post-Tridentine claims, _vide_ Lea, _Studies_, p. 216, etc.
Footnote 319:
Holdsworth, _Hist. Eng. Law_, iii. p. 253.
Footnote 320:
Even _insidiatores viarum et depopulatores agrorum_ were ultimately
allowed clergy by 4 Hen. IV. c. 2, A.D. 1402.
Footnote 321:
Matthew Hale, _Pleas of the Crown_, ii. p. 333. London, 1800.
Footnote 322:
Lingard, _Hist._ ii. p. 192, etc.
Footnote 323:
Holdsworth, i. p. 382.
Footnote 324:
Lea, _Studies_, pp. 213, 218.
Footnote 325:
Lingard, ii. p. 127.
Footnote 326:
D. Rock, _The Church of Our Fathers_, i. p. 144. London, 1903.
Footnote 327:
J. F. Stephen, _Hist. Crim. Law_, i. p. 461.
Footnote 328:
A. S. Green, _Henry II._, p. 85. London, 1903.
Footnote 329:
Lea, _Studies_, pp. 178, 203.
Footnote 330:
Johnson, _Laws and Canons_, ii. p. 194.
Footnote 331:
25 Ed. III. c. 4.
Footnote 332:
J. F. Stephen, _Hist. Crim. Law_, i. p. 461.
Footnote 333:
Meiklejohn, _Hist. Eng._ vol. i. p. 165. London, 1895.
Footnote 334:
Lord Auckland, _Principles_, p. 173.
Footnote 335:
Thomas Smith, _De Republica Anglorum_, Alston’s ed. p. 103. Cambridge,
1906.
Footnote 336:
D. Barrington, _Observations on the More Ancient Statutes_, p. 443.
Footnote 337:
Hale, _Pleas of the Crown_, ii. p. 372.
Footnote 338:
J. F. Stephen, _Hist. Crim. Law_, i. p. 460.
Footnote 339:
Pollock and Maitland, _Hist. Eng. Law_, i. p. 426.
Footnote 340:
W. Stanford, _Plees de Coron._, lib. ii. cap. 48. London, 1560.
Footnote 341:
Holdsworth, _Hist. Eng. Law_, i. p. 382.
Footnote 342:
J. F. Stephen, _Hist. Crim. Law_, i. p. 461.
Footnote 343:
See Bingham, _Antiquities of the Christian Church_, v. p. 459.
Footnote 344:
_Concilium Tarragonense_, c. 4, A.D. 516.
_C. Autissiodorense_, c. 34, A.D. 578.
_C. Toletanum_, xi. c. 6, A.D. 675.
Footnote 345:
_Excerptiones Ecgberti, Arch. Ebor._ 156.
Footnote 346:
Johnson, _Laws and Canons_, ii. p. 60.
Footnote 347:
_C. Lat._ iv. c. 18.
Footnote 348:
_C. Toletanum_, iv. c. 31, A.D. 633.
Footnote 349:
_C. Autissiodorense_, c. 33, A.D. 578.
Footnote 350:
As, for instance, Theodosius, fourth century; Emperor Henry IV.,
eleventh century; Henry II., twelfth century.
Footnote 351:
Thrupp, _Anglo-Saxon Home_, p. 238.
Footnote 352:
_Ibid._ p. 243.
Footnote 353:
King Æthelwulf, in the ninth century, obtained an ordinance from the
Pope that no Englishman was to be condemned to make a pilgrimage in
irons outside his own country.—Lappenburg, _Saxon Kings_, ii. 26. A
pilgrim from Canterbury would be recognised by his carrying back a
bottle or a bell; a shell if he had arrived from Santiago de
Compostela (Spain), and a palm from the Eastern Land.—R. F.
Littledale, _Ency. Brit._
Footnote 354:
Thrupp, _Anglo-Saxon Home_, p. 256.
Footnote 355:
See W. J. Thoms, _Early English Prose Romances_, i. p. 31, etc.
London, 1858.
Footnote 356:
Johnson, _Laws and Canons_, ii. p. 449.
Footnote 357:
So much would depend upon the view taken by the penitentiary. See, for
instance, Charles Reade’s historical story, _The Cloister and the
Hearth_.
Footnote 358:
Usually for half the time, and often for three days in a week for the
second half. Vide _Pen. Ecgberti, Arch. Ebor._ etc.
Footnote 359:
Lea, _Studies in Church History_, p. 245.
Footnote 360:
Thorpe, fol. ed. pp. 280, 315.
Footnote 361:
See the Penitential of Archbishop Theodore of Canterbury (A.D. 673),
Thorpe, p. 278.
In the year 1139 a Council of Lateran condemned murderers of the
clergy to excommunication, removable by the Pope alone (Labbé, tom.
xxi. p. 530). Nevertheless we find Archbishop Richard complaining of
want of protection (Petrus Blesensis, _Opera_, Epistola 73, Giles’s
ed. i. p. 217, Oxford, 1847; also Hook, _Lives of the Archbishops of
Canterbury_, ii. p. 577, London, 1862); and Henry II. provided lay
penalties (Reeves, _Hist. Eng. Law_, i. p. 133; Lingard, _Hist._ ii.
p. 193; Carte, _Hist._ i. p. 689; C. H. Pearson, _History of England
during the Early and Middle Ages_, p. 511. London, 1867).
Footnote 362:
_Vide_ Penitential of Theodore, _De Temperantia Poenitentium_, etc.
Footnote 363:
Penitential of Ecgberht, Archbishop of York (eighth century), Thorpe,
p. 377.
“The common penance for murder” (ninth century) was seven to ten
years.
Footnote 364:
J. Johnson, _Laws and Canons_, note E, ii. p. 11.
Footnote 365:
_C. Ancyranum_, c. 5, A.D. 314.
_C. Nicaeni_, c. 12, A.D. 325.
_C. Chalcedonense_, c. 16, A.D. 451.
_C. Ilerdense_, c. 5, A.D. 524.
Footnote 366:
For England, see Thorpe, i. p. 278; Johnson, _Laws and Canons_, ii.
pp. 10, 11, note D.
Footnote 367:
Johnson, p. 446.
Footnote 368:
Marshall, _Penitential Discipline_, pp. 109, 110.
Footnote 369:
The king’s familiar friends and associates were to be received into
the communion of the Church and were not to be cast out, decreed a
Council of Toledo.—_C. Toletanum_, xii. c. 3, A.D. 681; Labbé, tom.
xi. p. 1030; Marshall, _Penitential Discipline_, p. 126.
Footnote 370:
_C. Clovenhonense_, cc. 26, 27, A.D. 747.
Footnote 371:
Maitland, _Domesday Book_, p. 281.
Footnote 372:
St. Ambrose, _De Elia et Jejunio_, c. xx.; Migne, _Patrologiae_, tom.
xiv. p. 724.
Footnote 373:
See J. Johnson and B. Thorpe; also Lea, _Middle Ages_, i. pp. 464,
473.
Footnote 374:
Carte, _Hist._ i. p. 581. I think it was Herbert Spencer who remarked
how completely mere outward material performance or conformity could
generally satisfy the mediæval claims.
Footnote 375:
5 Rich. II. c. 5, A.D. 1382.
2 Hen. IV. c. 15, A.D. 1400.
2 Hen. V. c. 7, A.D. 1414.
Footnote 376:
_C. Triburiense_, c. 3, A.D. 895.
Lea, _Studies_, p. 384.
Stubbs, in Appendix II. _Ecc. Courts Comm._, 1883, pp. 55, 56.
Footnote 377:
He might even be proceeded against on suspicion of heresy if he
continued contumelious. See twenty-fifth session of the Council of
Trent, Lecourayer, tom. ii. pp. 648, 653.
Footnote 378:
Stubbs, _Const. Hist._ iii. p. 374.
Footnote 379:
Chaucer, John Saunders’ ed. p. 83. London, 1889.
“Significavit is a Writ which issues out of the Chancery pon a
Certificate given by the Ordinary of a man that stands obstinately
excommunicate by the space of forty days, for the laying him up in
prison without Bail or Mainprice, until he submit himself to the
Authority of the Church.” “And it is so called because Significavit is
an emphatical word in the Writ.”—T. Blount, _Law Dictionary_. London,
1717.
Footnote 380:
See A. Abram, _Social England in the Fifteenth Century_, p. 111
(London, 1909); also _Chancery Warrants for Issue, The Patent Rolls_,
etc.; J. Johnson, _Laws and Canons_, ii. p. 192, _De Excommunicato
Capiendo_, and p. 399; Holdsworth, _Hist._ i. pp. 358, 433.
Footnote 381:
Henry II. of England was severely scourged by eighty ecclesiastics;
the bishops present gave each five strokes, and every monk gave three.
The king’s penance brought on illness.—Lea, _Middle Ages_, p. 464;
Meiklejohn, _Hist._ i. p. 102.
Footnote 382:
Bingham, _Antiquities of the Christian Church_, vi. p. 172.
Footnote 383:
Bingham, ii. p. 128.
I once saw a cell belonging to a Spanish prelate at Majorca; it was a
little dark lock-up and was untenanted.
Footnote 384:
For instance, Tinmouth Priory was employed as a prison by the abbots
of St. Albans. See W. Dugdale, _Monasticum Anglicanum_, iii. p. 309.
London, 1846.
Bingham, vii. p. 43.
Ingulph’s _Chronicle of the Abbey of Croyland_. Riley’s ed. p. 98.
Footnote 385:
Lea, _Middle Ages_, i. p. 488.
Footnote 386:
_Ibid._ p. 490.
Charles Molinier, _L’Inquisition au XIII^e et au XIV^e siècle_, pp.
435, 440, etc. Paris, 1880.
_Concilium Albiense_, c. 24, A.D. 1254.
Lea, _Superstition and Force_, p. 426.
Findings of the Commission of Cardinals sent by Pope Clement V. in
1306; see Molinier, p. 450, and B. Hauréau, Bernard Delicieux, p. 134,
etc. Paris, 1877.
Footnote 387:
_C. Tolosani_, c. 11.
Footnote 388:
Lea, _Middle Ages_, i. p. 491.
Footnote 389:
_C. Biterrense_, c. 23, et _C. Biterrense_, A.D. 1233; _De Custodia
Claustria_, Labbé, tom. xxiii. p. 275.
Footnote 390:
Lea, _Middle Ages_, i. p. 487.
Footnote 391:
Lea, _Middle Ages_, p. 486.
Footnote 392:
In 1234 a Council of Albi decreed that the holders of confiscated
property of heretics should make provision for the imprisonment and
maintenance of its former owners.
Footnote 393:
For instance, in A.D. 1300 we find certain prisoners at Albi condemned
“Ad perpetuum carcerem stricti muri ubi panis doloris in cibum et aqua
tribulationis in potum, in vinculis et cathenis ferreis solummodo
ministrentur.”—Molinier, p. 94, quoting Doat, tom. xxxv.
Footnote 394:
“We do with special injunction ordain that every bishop have one or
two prisons in his bishopric; he is to take care of the sufficient
largeness and security thereof for the safe keeping of clerks
according to canonical customs that are flagitious, that is, caught in
a crime or convicted thereof. And if any clerk be so incorrigibly
wicked that he must have suffered capital punishment if he had been a
layman, we adjure such an one to perpetual imprisonment....”—J.
Johnson, ii. pp. 207, 208; _Constitutions of Archbishop Boniface_,
A.D. 1261.
Footnote 395:
Dugdale, _Monasticum Anglicanum_, vi. p. 238.
Footnote 396:
Lea, _Middle Ages_, p. 487.
Footnote 397:
James Stephen, _Studies in Ecclesiastical Biography_, p. 38. London,
1907.
Footnote 398:
J. W. Willis Bund, _Episcopal Registers_, ii. p. 182. Oxford, 1902.
Footnote 399:
H. T. Riley, _Gesta Abbatum Monasterii Sancti Albani_, i. p. 266.
London, 1867.
Footnote 400:
_History of the Inquisition in the Middle Ages_, i. p. 487 and note;
and see H. R. Luard, _Annales Monastici_, t. ii. p. 296, t. iii. p.
76; F. W. Maitland, _Law Quarterly Review_, ii. p. 159.
Footnote 401:
Bund, _Epis. Registers of the Diocese of Worcester_, ii. p. 189.
Footnote 402:
Bingham, _Antiquities of the Christian Church_, vii. p. 18.
Footnote 403:
_Ibid._ p. 12.
Footnote 404:
Addis and Arnold, _Cath. Dict._ p. 276.
Footnote 405:
S. Lugio, _Cath. Ency._ iv. p. 678. New York, 1908.
Footnote 406:
Coulton, _Chaucer and His England_, p. 288.
Lea, _Studies in Church History_, p. 189.
“Degradation was a penalty rarely inflicted, since the Church was
reluctant to admit that the sacred office once conferred could be
taken away for any offence short of heresy.”—Davis, _Normans and
Angevins_, p. 207.
Footnote 407:
Degraded clerks were forbidden to live in the world as laymen by a
Council of Rouen.—_C. Rothomagense_, c. 12, A.D. 1074.
Those who threw off their habit were not to be admitted into the army
or into any convent of clerks, but were to be esteemed
excommunicate.—Lanfranc’s _Canons_, c. 12, A.D. 1071; J. J. ii. 9.
Footnote 408:
Lecourayer, _Concile du Trente_, tom. i. p. 543.
Footnote 409:
Stubbs, _Ecc. Courts Comm._, 1883, Appendix ii. p. 57.
Footnote 410:
A lay officer was supposed to be present to take over the fallen
cleric into his custody.—_Cath. Ency._ iv. p. 678.
Footnote 411:
_C. Remense_, A.D. 1157.
Footnote 412:
_C. Oxoniense_, A.D. 1166.
Footnote 413:
_C. Turonense_, A.D. 1163.
Footnote 414:
2 Hen. IV. c. 15.
Footnote 415:
Lea, _Hist. Inq. Middle Ages_, i. p. 222.
A deacon was burned at Oxford in 1222, having been tried before
Archbishop Langton for embracing Judaism in order to marry a
Jewess.[418] From that time until 1400 no one is said to have been
burned to death for heresy in England.—Maitland, _Law Quarterly
Review_, ii. p. 153. London, 1886.
Footnote 416:
Professor E. P. Evans throws an interesting side-light on this
offence. “It seems rather odd,” he observes, “that the Christian
lawgivers should have adopted the Jewish code against sexual
intercourse with beasts, and then enlarged it so as to include the
Jews themselves. The question was gravely discussed by jurists whether
cohabitation of a Christian with a Jewess, or _vice versa_,
constitutes sodomy. Damhouder (_Prax. rer. crim._ c. 96, n. 48) is of
the opinion that it does, and Nicolaus Boër (_Decis_, 136, n. 5) cites
the case of a certain Johannes Alardus or Jean Alard who kept a Jewess
in his house in Paris and had several children by her; he was
convicted of sodomy on account of this relation and burned, together
with his paramour, ‘since coition with a Jewess is precisely the same
as if a man should copulate with a dog’ (_Döpl. Theat._ ii. p. 157).
Damhouder includes Turks and Saracens in the same category.”—_The
Criminal Prosecution and Capital Punishment of Animals_, p. 152.
London, 1906.
Footnote 417:
Lea, _Middle Ages_, i. pp. 220, 221, etc.
Footnote 418:
A pious old lady left a bequest to the city of London to defray the
expenses of incinerating misbelievers.—Meiklejohn, _Hist._ i. 223.
Footnote 419:
W. Stubbs, _Charters_, p. 136.
Footnote 420:
G. B. Adams, _Political History_, p. 270. London, 1905.
Footnote 421:
It was represented to him that in the nine years through which he had
reigned innumerable offences and one hundred murders had been
committed by clerks who had escaped all punishments save the light
sentences of fine and imprisonment inflicted by their own courts.—W.
R. W. Stephens, _The English Church_, p. 165. London, 1901. _William
of Newburgh_, lib. ii. p. 130, H. C. Hamilton’s ed. London, 1856.
Footnote 422:
In the thirteenth century there were, for instance, twelve clerks in
the village of Rougham.—Augustus Jessopp, _Coming of the Friars_, p.
84. London, 1889. See also J. E. Thorold Rogers, _Six Centuries of
Work and Wages_, i. pp. 24, 160, 161.
Footnote 423:
Carte, _Hist._ i. p. 581.
Footnote 424:
Eirikr Magnusson, _Thomas’ Saga Erkibyskup_, i. p. 144, note.
Footnote 425:
William FitzStephen; J. C. Robertson’s _Materials for the History of
Thomas Becket_, iii. p. 45. London, 1881.
David Hume, _Hist. Eng._ i. p. 391. London, 1818.
Footnote 426:
See Herbertus de Boseham; Robertson, _Materials_, iii. pp. 264, 265.
Footnote 427:
Magnusson, _Thomas’ Saga Erkibyskup_, i. p. 145.
Footnote 428:
William of Canterbury; Robertson’s _Materials_, i. pp. 12, 13.
Edward Grim; Robertson, ii. p. 375.
Anonymous; Robertson, iv. p. 24.
K. Norgate, _England under the Angevin Kings_, ii. p. 21. London,
1887.
Footnote 429:
R. de Diceto, _Works_, Stubbs’s ed. i. p. 313. London, 1876.
Footnote 430:
F. W. Maitland, _Eng. Hist. Rev._ vii. p. 226. London, 1892.
Footnote 431:
Stephens, _Hist. Eng. Church_, p. 166.
Footnote 432:
Nahum, i. 9.
Footnote 433:
Norgate, _Angevin Kings_, ii. p. 23.
Footnote 434:
Stephens, _Hist. Eng. Church_, p. 166.
Footnote 435:
Holdsworth, _Hist._ i. p. 382.
Footnote 436:
Pollock and Maitland, _Hist._ i. p. 442, and note 2, ed. of 1898.
Footnote 437:
James Gairdner, _The English Church_, p. 42. London, 1902.
Footnote 438:
Reeves, _Hist. Eng. Law_, iii. p. 41.
Footnote 439:
If a clerk were accused, the Crown got his goods till he had completed
purgation, after which they were usually returned (Hale, _Pleas of the
Crown_, ii. p. 384). If, however, he was delivered over _absque
purgatione_, or if he had first pleaded guilty, the king retained
them, and had the produce of his lands for the prisoner’s life.—A. T.
Carter, _History of English Legal Institutions_, p. 255. London, 1906.
Footnote 440:
Johnson, _Laws and Canons_, ii. p. 208.
Footnote 441:
2 Ed. I. c. 2.
Footnote 442:
4 Ed. I. c. 5.
Footnote 443:
Following a Canon of the Council of Lyons, A.D. 1274. _C. Lugd._ c. 6.
Footnote 444:
For other instances of the dislike to remarriage, see Westermarck,
_Moral Ideas_, ii. pp. 450, 451; and E. S. Hartland, _Primitive
Paternity_, i. p. 134.
Footnote 445:
Johnson, _Laws and Canons_, ii. p. 267.
Footnote 446:
25 Ed. III. c. 4.
Footnote 447:
See, for instance, a law passed in 1378 (1 Ric. II. c. 15) against
arresting priests during divine service.
Footnote 448:
Archbishop Islip’s _Constitutions_, A.D. 1351. Johnson, _Laws and
Canons_, ii. p. 414, etc.
Footnote 449:
See, for instance, F. C. Hingeston-Randolph, _Register of John de
Grandisson, Bishop of Exeter_, Part ii. p. 1118. London, 1897.
Footnote 450:
For instance, they could not be accused by disreputable persons;
_vide_ _C. Carthag._ A.D. 390; Labbé, tom. iii. pp. 694, 870; _C.
Chalced._ c. 21, A.D. 451; Labbé, tom. vi. p. 1229; _C. Trident._ Ses.
13, c. 7, A.D. 1551. It was complained that the clergy could not be
accused by the laity and would not accuse each other.—Lea, _Studies in
Church History_, pp. 208, 211.
Footnote 451:
For instance, Simon Fish in his _Supplicacyon of Beggars_, written
about 1529, J. M. Couper’s ed. p. 12. London, 1871.
Shakespeare, writing of the fifteenth century, refers to the matter:
... You know our king
Is prisoner to the bishop here, at whose hands
He hath good usage and great liberty.
_Third Part of King Henry VI._ iv. 5.
See also Hook, _Archbishops of Canterbury_, ii. p. 398.
Footnote 452:
J. C. Robertson, _Materials_, iv. p. 49; _Epist. Nicolaus de Monte_.
Footnote 453:
Coulton, _Chaucer_, p. 288.
Footnote 454:
Lea, _Studies in Church History_, p. 196.
Footnote 455:
Hale, _Pleas of the Crown_, ii. p. 384.
Footnote 456:
Pollock and Maitland, p. 444, ed. 1898.
_Ibid._ pp. 427, ed. 1895.
Footnote 457:
Riley, _Chronica Monasterii S. Albani_, iii. p. 48. See also Britton,
Nichols’ ed. p. 27.
Footnote 458:
4 Hen. IV. c. 3.
Footnote 459:
1 Hen. VII. c. 4.
Footnote 460:
4 Hen. VII. c. 13.
Footnote 461:
J. F. Stephen, _Hist. Crim. Law_, i. p. 463.
Footnote 462:
Holdsworth, _Hist._ i. p. 382.
Footnote 463:
12 Hen. VII. c. 7.
Footnote 464:
4 Hen. VIII. c. 2, A.D. 1512.
Footnote 465:
T. Rymer, _Foedera_, tom. xiv. p. 239. London, 1712.
Footnote 466:
Lea, _Studies in Church History_, p. 189.
Footnote 467:
23 Hen. VIII. c. 11.
Footnote 468:
25 Hen. VIII. c. 3.
Footnote 469:
28 Hen. VIII. c. 1, s. 7.
Footnote 470:
“In 1533 unnatural offences, in 1541 witchcraft, were made felonies.
In 1603 bigamy was made a felony.”—Holdsworth, _Hist._ i. p. 388.
Footnote 471:
18 Eliz. c. 7.
Footnote 472:
Special, and moral, prosecutions were carried out through the Court of
Star Chamber (3 Hen. VII. c. 1) (_vide_ Lingard, _Hist._ vii. p. 377;
Carter, _Outlines of English Legal History_, p. 101; Hudson, _Treatise
on the Star Chamber_) and by the hated Court of High Commission (1
Eliz. c. 1) (see Hale, _Precedents and Proceedings in Criminal Cases_,
p. 1., and _Ecc. Courts Comm._, 1883, p. xxxviii.), which imposed some
enormous fines and inflicted various painful penalties, till they,
with the ecclesiastical courts, were overthrown in the year 1640 (16
Car. I. c. 10 and 11).
Footnote 473:
Blackstone, iv. p. 28.
Footnote 474:
Women received certain allowances by 21 Jac. I. c. 6 in 1623.
Footnote 475:
10 & 11 Will. III. c. 23.
Footnote 476:
5 Anne c. 6.
Footnote 477:
Carter, _Hist. Eng. Legal Inst._ p. 247, ed. 1902.
Footnote 478:
J. F. Stephen, _Hist. Crim. Law_, i. 463.
Footnote 479:
4 Geo. I. c. 11.
Footnote 480:
Holdsworth, _Hist._ p. 383.
Footnote 481:
J. F. Stephen, _Hist. Crim. Law_, p. 463.
Footnote 482:
19 Geo. III. c. 74, s. 3.
Footnote 483:
7 & 8 Geo. IV. c. 28, s. 6, A.D. 1827.
Footnote 484:
Yet as Professor Menger expressed it, “Nothing can be so unequal as
the equal treatment of unequals.”
Footnote 485:
J. F. Stephen, _Hist. Crim. Law_, iii. p. 27.
Footnote 486:
William Andrews, _Old-Time Punishments_, p. 153.
Footnote 487:
_Dictionary of National Biography._ There was an Act of Henry VIII.
which has been called the whip with six strings, which may have some
reference to the hangman’s usual weapon.
Footnote 488:
On the old convict ship _Success_.
Footnote 489:
See Murray, _Dictionary_, vol. iv.
Footnote 490:
“Hangman, I charge you to pay particular attention to this lady.
Scourge her soundly, man; scourge her till the blood runs down. It is
Christmas—a cold time for madam to strip. See that you warm her
shoulders thoroughly.”—Mr. Justice Jeffreys, quoted in Andrews,
_Old-Time Punishments_, p. 154.
Footnote 491:
57 Geo. III. c. 75.
Footnote 492:
See Statute of Labourers, 25 Ed. III. c. 2.
Footnote 493:
L. Jewitt, “The Pillory and who they put in it,” _The Reliquary_, i.
p. 210, April 1861.
Footnote 494:
Besant, _Tudors_, p. 381.
Footnote 495:
Andrews, _Old-Time Punishments_, p. 68.
Footnote 496:
Jewitt, p. 213.
Footnote 497:
_Ibid._ p. 221.
Footnote 498:
56 Geo. III. c. 138.
Footnote 499:
7 Will. IV. and 1 Vict. c. 23.
Footnote 500:
Besant, _Mediæval London_, p. 354.
Footnote 501:
J. A. Rees, _The Grocery Trade_, p. 57. London, 1910.
Footnote 502:
W. Hudson, _Treatise on the Court of Star Chamber_, ii. p. 225.
Footnote 503:
Lea, _Hist. Inq. Middle Ages_, i. p. 441.
Footnote 504:
Hudson, _Treatise on the Court of Star Chamber_, p. 225.
Footnote 505:
James Gairdner, _English Church_, p. 53.
Footnote 506:
Pike, _Hist._ i. p. 237.
Footnote 507:
Barrington, _Ancient Statutes_, p. 422.
Footnote 508:
Andrews, _Old-Time Punishments_, p. 152.
Footnote 509:
_Ibid._ p. 140.
Footnote 510:
Jewitt, “Scolds and how they cured them,” _Reliquary_, October 1860.
Footnote 511:
Andrews, _Old-Time Punishments_, p. 45.
Footnote 512:
See Jewitt, “A few Notes on Ducking Stools,” _Reliquary_, January
1861.
Footnote 513:
Andrews, _Old-Time Punishments_, etc., etc.
Footnote 514:
Holdsworth, _Hist._ ii. p. 327.
Footnote 515:
At some of the American lynchings the injured woman applies a match to
the wood upon which the offending negro is to be burned to death.
Footnote 516:
“They died alone and unpitied,” says Lecky; “... their very kinsmen
shrank from them as tainted and accursed.”—_History of Rationalism_,
p. 149. London, 1865.
Footnote 517:
Meetings of a more or less bacchanalian character really took place in
Europe through the middle ages, survivals of old rites and
nature-worship. See Professor Karl Pearson’s long and learned account
of these in _The Chances of Death_. London, 1897.
Footnote 518:
These were often domestic pets or animals about the yard. Even feeding
the sparrows on the winter snow would have been dangerous for a
suspected person. See kind of evidence sought for by R. Bernard in his
_Guide to Grand Jurymen_, p. 235. London, 1627, etc. The miserable
witches, in the agony of sleeplessness and torment, ultimately doing
or saying anything that was already expected of them. See, for
instance, F. Hutchinson, _An Historical Essay concerning Witchcraft_,
pp. 37, 57. London, 1718.
Footnote 519:
On the power of suggestion and imagination, see, for instance, G. le
Bon, _Revue scientifique_, March 26 and April 2, 1910.
Footnote 520:
The whole hideous and devilish procedure is given by J. Sprenger and
H. Institor in their _Malleus Malificarum_, about 1485–89. Frankfort
ed., 1580.
Paulus Grillandus, _De sortilegiis_, lib. 4, _De questionibus et
tortura_. Lyons, 1533.
J. Bodin, _De la démonomanie des sorciers_. Paris, 1580.
R. Scot, _The Discoverie of Witchcraft_. London, 1584. B. Nicholson’s
edition. London, 1886.
H. Boguet, _Discours des sorciers_. Lyons, 1608.
Footnote 521:
Esquirol gives this as a symptom in some forms of insanity. See E. K.
Hunt’s translation of _Mental Maladies_, p. 245. Philadelphia, 1845.
R. Scot, _Descoverie Booke_, ii. chaps, v.–viii.
Bodin, _Démonomanie_, p. 170.
James I., _Daemonologie_, p. 81.
H. Boguet, chap. xlvi.
Footnote 522:
_The Cenci._
Footnote 523:
_Historical Essay_, p. 139.
Footnote 524:
See J. P. Migne, _Encyclopédie théologique_, vol. xlix. tome second,
p. 72. Paris, 1848.
Charles Mackay has observed: “It was no unusual thing then, nor is it
now, that in aged persons there should be some spot on the body
totally devoid of feeling,” p. 137. In Scotland there were a number of
witch-finders who were known as “common prickers,” p. 146.—_Popular
Delusions_, London, 1869.
Footnote 525:
Michael Dalton, _The Countrey Justice_, p. 242. London, 1618.
James I., _Daemonologie_, p. 80.
Matthew Hopkins quoted, p. 33, _ante_.
_Sinistrari of Ameno Demoniality_, p. 27. J. Liseux, trans. Paris,
1879.
D. Neal, _History of New England_, p. 137. London, 1747.
Footnote 526:
Hutchinson, _Essay_, p. 138.
Footnote 527:
T. Wright, _Dame Alice Kyteler_, London, Camden Society, vol. xxiv.,
1843.
Footnote 528:
H. L. Stephen, _State Trials_, vol. i. p. 211. London, 1899.
Footnote 529:
Hutchinson, p. 34.
Footnote 530:
See long and interesting essay on witchcraft in the _Ency. Brit._
ninth ed.
Footnote 531:
The Act is quoted at length in R. Royston’s _Advertisement to Jurymen
of England_, in which he criticises del Rio’s and Perkins’ “proofs.”
Footnote 532:
Alluded to by Cotton Mather, _The Wonders of the Invisible World_.
Boston, 1693.
Footnote 533:
James Williams, _Ency. Brit._ ninth ed. vol. xxiv. p. 622. Kincaid was
one of the “common prickers” or professional finders, who in those
superstitious times were numerous.
Footnote 534:
For instance, Michael Dalton, _The Countrey Justice_, p. 242; Richard
Bernard, _A Guide to Grand Jurymen_, p. 240.
Footnote 535:
Whether the story of his immersion is true or not, he undoubtedly died
despised and discredited.
Footnote 536:
_Hudibras_, Part iii. chap. iii.
Footnote 537:
Coming down, may be, from the prehistoric mother cult. See Karl
Pearson, Woman as Witch in his _Chances of Death_.
Footnote 538:
Exorcism, etc. Paul Regnard, _Les Maladies épidémiques de l’esprit_,
is full of engravings of old pictures illustrating the point. Paris,
1887.
Footnote 539:
Although the Popes, such as John XXII., Innocent VIII., Julius II.,
and Adrian VI., legislated on witches, the Protestants were quite as
vindictive. See, for instance, J. Michelet, _Life of Luther_, bk. v.
chap. vi.: “The crazed, the halt, the blind, and the dumb are all
possessed with demons. Physicians who treat these infirmities as
arising from natural causes are fools who know not the power of the
devil.” We shall deal later with the works of Puritan divines in
England and America.
Footnote 540:
Chapters xi., xiv., etc.; French edition of 1579.
Footnote 541:
This theory was advanced by George Gifford in _A discourse of the
subtill practices of Devilles by witches and sorcerers_, etc. London,
1587.
Footnote 542:
_A dialogue concerning witches and witchcraft. In which is laid open
how craftily the Devill deceiveth not only the witches but many
others._ London, 1603. And by John Webster, who was sceptical of the
miraculous in his _Displaying of supposed Witchcraft_, 1677.
Footnote 543:
In 1609 a terrible commission scourged the regions round Bordeaux and
Labourt in Western France. See P. de l’Ancre, _Tableau de
l’inconstance den Mauvais Anges_, 1612. Under Louis XIV. the lurid
_Chambre Ardente_ was set up in 1679, and lasted till 1682. La Reynie,
the Lieutenant-General of Police, was an active inquisitor. See F.
Funck-Brentano, _Princes and Poisoners_; G. Maidment, trans. London,
1901.
Footnote 544:
_Cautio Criminalis_, 1631.
Footnote 545:
_Saducisimis Triumphatus_, 1681.
Footnote 546:
In Dutch, 1681; French translation, _Le Monde enchanté_. Amsterdam,
1684.
Footnote 547:
_The Certainty of the World of Spirits._ London, 1691.
Footnote 548:
_The Wonders of the Invisible World: Observations upon the Nature, the
Number, and the Operations of the Devils._
Footnote 549:
R. Calef, _More Wonders of the Invisible World_. London, 1700.
Footnote 550:
D. Neal, _History of New England_.—“The prisons were hardly able to
hold the number of the accused.”
Footnote 551:
As it did as late as 1861, round the little village of Morzines in
Savoy; see A Constans, _Une Relation sur une épidémie
d’hystério-démonopathie_. Paris, 1863.
Dr. R. Madden gives a long account of various historical outbreaks in
his _Phantasmata_, chap. x. “Maniacal Epidemics, etc.” London, 1857.
E. Pronier, _Étude sur la contagion de la Folie._ Lausanne, 1892.
L. F. Calmeil, _De la Folie_. Paris, 1845.
Footnote 552:
_An Historical Essay concerning Witchcraft._
Footnote 553:
Lecky, _History of Rationalism_.
Footnote 554:
One mediæval writer was said to have estimated the exact number of the
various devils, which he stated as 7,405,926; see Jules Garinet,
_Histoire de la Magie_, p. xxviii. Paris, 1818. Another declared that
there were six principal genera of demons; R. Madden, _Phantasmata_,
p. 293. Another author puts the devils at 2,665,866,746,664; see P.
Carus, _History of the Devil_, p. 346. London, 1900.
Footnote 555:
“Quae quidam nefandissima opera si non vere fierent, sed delusoria,
vane contra ea fuissent promulgatae leges et in legum ipsarum
auctores, etiā in ipsum Deum, ista retorqueretur vanitas; quod extrema
blasphemia est.”—B. de Spina, _Quaestio de strigibus_, p. 8. Rome,
1576.
Footnote 556:
_Sortilège_, p. 599. Paris, 1622.
Footnote 557:
_A Tryall of Witches, 10th March 1664_, Sir Matthew Hale, Kt. Appendix
by C. Clark, p. 20. London, 1838.
Footnote 558:
_State Trials_, i.
Footnote 559:
_Saducismus Triumphatus._
Footnote 560:
The Roman Catholic view of sorcery and evil spirits is treated at
length by R. R. Madden, _Phantasmata_, chap. ix.
Footnote 561:
A. Chalmers, _Biographical Dict._ art. “Cotton Mather.” London, 1815.
Footnote 562:
“We cannot help lamenting that a sect among us looks upon the
abolition of the penal statute against witchcraft not only as an evil
but as a sin.... The Seceders published an Act ... in 1743 (reprinted
at Glasgow, 1766). In this Act is contained the annual confession of
sins.... Among the sins national and personal there confessed are ...
(that) the penal statutes against witchcraft have been repealed by
Parliament, contrary to the express law of God.”—H. Arnot, _Criminal
Trials in Scotland_, p. 370. Edinburgh, 1785.
Footnote 563:
Lecky, _History of Rationalism_, p. 134.
Footnote 564:
_Arminian Magazine_, v. p. 366. London, 1782.
Footnote 565:
Dr. H. More employed the same argument in his _Antidote against
Atheism_, lib. iii. chap. ii. London, 1653.
Footnote 566:
_Lay Sermons._ London, 1870.
Footnote 567:
H. L. Stephen, _State Trials_.
Footnote 568:
_History of Rationalism_, chap. i.
Footnote 569:
J. Williams, _Ency. Brit._, ninth ed. art. “Witchcraft.”
Footnote 570:
Mackay, _Delusions_, pp. 184, 187, etc.
Footnote 571:
_History of Rationalism_, p. 4, etc.
Footnote 572:
See article on the case by E. F. Benson, _Nineteenth Century_, vol.
xxxvii. June 1895. A somewhat similar case occurred at Tarbes in
1850.—_History of Rationalism_, p. 4.
Footnote 573:
“What sort of distemper ’tis shall stick the body full of
pins?”—Quoted by Calef, _More Wonders_, p. 5.
Footnote 574:
Scot quotes a ghastly passage from Grillandus, who writeth “that when
witches sleepe and feel no paine upon the torture, _Domine labia mea
aperies_ should be said, and so, saith he, both the torment will be
felt and the truth will be uttered.—_Discoverie of Witchcraft_, p. 17.
And we find in del Rio: “Narravit mihi ... anno 1599 captam puellulam
strigatricem, quae nec pedum ustulationem saevissimam, nec flagra
validissima sentiebat; donec Sacerdos cujusdam monitu illi Agni
benedicti ceream imaginem in collum injecere, tum enim vi sacra
amuleti daemonis praestigiosa ludibria depulsa et illa vim doloris
coepit persentiscere.”—_Disquisitionum magicarum_, p. 184. Venice,
1616. See also E. Gurney, _Phantasms of the Living_, p. 181, who
considers the insensibility to pain may have been due sometimes to
auto-hynotism.
Footnote 575:
Mentioned, for instance, in _Twelfth Night_.
Footnote 576:
Les sorcières furent les sages-femmes et les sorciers les médecins du
moyen âge.—P. Christian, _Histoire de la magie_, p. 400. Paris, ?
1871.
Footnote 577:
E. Gurney, _Phantasms of the Living_, p. 183.
Footnote 578:
Lecky, _History of Rationalism_, p. 77.
Footnote 579:
R. Calef, the opponent of Cotton Mather, quotes an instance of this
kind. One Margaret Rule, having been seized with fits, “... some of
the neighbours were forward enough to suspect the rise of the mischief
in a house hard by, where lived a Miserable Woman who had been
formerly imprisoned on the suspicion of witchcraft, who had frequently
cured very painful hurts by muttering over them certain charms which I
[? C. M.] shall not endanger the Poysoning of my Reader by
repeating.”—_More Wonders of the Invisible World_, p. 3. Boston, 1700.
Footnote 580:
See O. M. Hueffer, _The Book of Witches_. London, 1908.
Footnote 581:
See action of Richard III.
Footnote 582:
The full indictment against Lord Hungerford, who was beheaded on Tower
Hill along with Thomas Cromwell, by Henry VIII.
Footnote 583:
P. de l’Ancre, _Seconde Considération_. As to the kind of offences
“qui se trouvent enveloppés dans le sortilège,” _Tableau de
l’inconstance des Mauvais Anges_. Paris, 1612.
Footnote 584:
J. Bodin, _Démonologie_, p. 60. Paris, 1580.
Footnote 585:
Shamanism, etc. See, for instance, Elie Reclus, _Primitive Folk_, pp.
68, 70. London, 1889.
Footnote 586:
The most tainted or prejudiced evidence was received in these kinds of
cases. See _Concilium Biterrense_ of A.D. 1246, c. 12. Labbé, tom.
xxiii. p. 718.
Footnote 587:
Scot, _Discoverie_, bk. i. chap. iii.
Footnote 588:
Mostly poor, miserable old women, Glanvil admits.—_Saducismus_, p. 29.
Footnote 589:
“None ever talked to themselves who were not witches,” asserted one of
the common prickers.—Mackay, _Delusions_, p. 147.
Footnote 590:
Especially as they often pretended, or really believed in, powers and
curses, and, being quite helpless on the material side, invoked the
aid of supernatural terrors to get assistance and be looked upon with
fear.
Footnote 591:
Various persons accused of witchcraft, says Boguet, “ont confessé
qu’ils faisoient la gresle en Sabbat afin de gaster les fruicts de la
terre.”—_Discours des sorciers_, p. 144. Storms were supposed to be
occasioned by the devils. “Telle est l’origine de l’habitude de sonner
les cloches pendant les orages.”—L. F. A. Maury, _La Magie_, p. 102.
Paris, 1860.
Footnote 592:
Bodin, _Démonologie_, p. 171.
Footnote 593:
Scot, _Discoverie_, p. 17. And this was also practised on a prisoner
accused of sorcery before James I.—Lecky, _History of Rationalism_, p.
114.
Footnote 594:
One of the early inquirers as to the witch trials took a friend in
with him to witness a torturing. As an experiment, he asked the
prisoner if his companion, an entire stranger, had not been one of her
accomplices, and the poor creature moaned out that he had.
Footnote 595:
“Le diable est si bon maistre que nous n’en pouvons envoyer si grand
nombre au feu, que de leurs cendres il n’en renaisse de nouveau
d’autres.”—Florimonde de Raemond, _Antichrist_, p. 103. Lyons, 1597.
Footnote 596:
It became a common prayer with women of the humbler class that they
might not live to be old. It was sufficient to be aged, poor, or
half-crazed to ensure death at the stake or on the scaffold.—Mackay,
_Delusions_, p. 116.
Footnote 597:
_History of Rationalism_, p. 3.
Footnote 598:
Mackay, _Delusions_, p. 159.
Footnote 599:
Lecky, _History of Rationalism_, p. 4.
Footnote 600:
Quoted by W. B. Gerish, _A Hertfordshire Witch_. London, 1906.
Footnote 601:
Mackay, _Delusions_, p. 139.
Footnote 602:
H. C. Lea, _History of the Inquisition in Spain_. New York, 1907.
Footnote 603:
W. F. Poole, _Salem Witchcraft_. Boston, 1869.
Footnote 604:
300,000 women are said to have been slaughtered since Innocent’s Bull
of 1484. See an important article in _Chamber’s Encyclopædia_, x. p.
698, ed. of 1901.
Footnote 605:
F. de Raemond, _L’Antichrist_, p. 102.
One writer estimated the number of sorcerers living in Europe at
1,800,000. See Calmeil, tom. i. p. 217.
Footnote 606:
James Howell, _Familiar Letters_, 1688.
Footnote 607:
Scot, _Discoverie_, p. 16.
Footnote 608:
_Ency. Brit._ ninth ed. vol. xxiv. p. 622.
Footnote 609:
“On the enactment of the statute to repeal the law, vanished all those
imaginary powers so absurdly attributed to old women oppressed with
age and poverty.”—H. Arnot, _Criminal Trials_, p. 369.
Footnote 610:
The late Mr. Gurney, of the Psychical Research Society, found, after a
most extensive investigation, “a total absence of respectable
evidence, and an almost total absence of any first-hand evidence at
all, for those phenomena of magic and witchcraft which cannot be
accounted for as the results of diseased imagination, hysteria,
hypnotism, and occasionally, perhaps, telepathy.”—_Phantasms of the
Living_, i. p. 172.
Footnote 611:
See E. B. Tylor, _Primitive Culture_, ii. p. 130.
Footnote 612:
J. B. Tuke in the _Ency. Brit._
Footnote 613:
E. Westermarck, _The Origin and Development of the Moral Ideas_, i. p.
269.
Footnote 614:
Westermarck, _Moral Ideas_, i. p. 270.
Footnote 615:
E. B. Tylor, _Primitive Culture_, ii. p. 117.
Footnote 616:
See, for instance, the story called “The Sleeper Awakened” in the
_Arabian Nights_.
Footnote 617:
The severities to which the insane were subjected by various tribes
are mentioned by Westermarck in _Moral Ideas_, i. p. 271.
Footnote 618:
John Conolly, _Treatment of the Insane_, p. 4. London, 1856.
Footnote 619:
F. Beach, _Psychology in John Hunter’s Time_; “they served as a sport
to visitors at assizes, fairs, and other times,” p. 4. Hunterian
Oration. London, 1891.
Footnote 620:
For an account of these wandering Tom o’ Bedlams, see Isaac D’Israeli,
_Curiosities of Literature_, ii. p. 343. London, 1849.
Footnote 621:
“Come, march to wakes and fairs and market-town. Poor Tom, thy horn is
dry.”—_Lear_, iii. 6.
Footnote 622:
_Lear_, iii. 4.
Footnote 623:
Walter Besant, _London in the Eighteenth Century_, p. 378. London,
1902.
Footnote 624:
This lasted right into the nineteenth century; see D. H. Tuke,
_Chapters in the History of the Insane_, p. 128. London, 1882.
Footnote 625:
See, for instance, W. Besant, _London in the Time of the Stuarts_, p.
236. London, 1903. And for a particularly filthy mixture advised “For
a man haunted by apparitions,” Cockayne, i. p. 365.
Footnote 626:
Oswald Cockayne, _Leechdoms, Wort Gunning, and Starcraft_, pp. 361,
365. London, 1864.
Footnote 627:
Cockayne, pp. 101, 161, 169.
Footnote 628:
Cockayne, i. p. 249.
Footnote 629:
Tylor, _Primitive Culture_, ii. p. 127.
Footnote 630:
Joseph Bingham, _Antiquities of the Christian Church_, i. p. 322.
Footnote 631:
Bingham, p. 323.
Footnote 632:
F. A. Gasquet, _Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries_, p. 463.
Footnote 633:
There were, says Maury, “de véritables litanies d’anathèmes contre
Satan.”—_La Magie_, p. 319.
Footnote 634:
J. Bingham, _Antiquities of the Christian Church_, i. p. 321. See also
Paul Verdun, _Le Diable dans la vie des saints_, p. 2; _Ency. Brit._
ninth ed. vol. viii. p. 806.
Footnote 635:
“The so-called Fourth Council of Carthage (anno 396) prescribes a form
for the ordination of exorcists the same in substance as that given in
the Roman Pontifical, and used at this day.”—Addis and Arnold,
_Catholic Dictionary_, art. “Exorcism.” London, 1903.
A man who was said to have been possessed by seven devils was
exorcised by seven clergymen at the Temple Church, Bristol, in
1788.—Tylor, _Primitive Culture_, ii. p. 128. See also L. A. Maury,
_La Magie_, p. 331.
Footnote 636:
Already in the fifth century Pope Innocent I. forbade the exorcists
from exercising their ministry without the express permission of the
bishop, and that order is in force. See also Louis Duchesne,
_Christian Worship_, M. L. Maclure’s trans. p. 349. London, 1904.
Footnote 637:
Addis and Arnold, _Cath. Dict._ p. 444.
Footnote 638:
Or this prayer of Pope Leo XIII.; “S. Michel Archange ... repoussez en
enfer par la vertu divine Satan, et les autres esprits mauvais, qui
errent dans le monde cherchant des âmes à perdre.” Quoted by P.
Verdun, ii. p. 314.
Footnote 639:
D. H. Tuke, _Hist. Insane_, p. 14.
Footnote 640:
F. Beach, _Psychology in John Hunter’s Time_, p. 2.
Footnote 641:
L. A. Maury, _La Magie_, p. 329.
Footnote 642:
Cockayne, _Leechdoms_, ii. bk. iii. p. 335.
Footnote 643:
W. A. F. Browne, _What Asylums were, are, and ought to be_, p. 101.
Edinburgh, 1837.
Footnote 644:
See Tylor, _Primitive Culture_, i. p. 258.
R. Routledge, _Hist. Science_, p. 5. London, 1881.
Edward Carpenter, _The Art of Creation_, p. 36. London, 1904.
Footnote 645:
It may be interesting to compare 1 Kings xxii. 20.
John Lubbock (Lord Avebury), _Origin of Civilisation_, p. 32. London,
1889.
Footnote 646:
Certain savages mentioned by Tylor endeavoured to stay the progress of
small-pox germs after this fashion.—_Primitive Culture_, ii. p. 115.
Footnote 647:
See, for instance, Abbot Richalmus, _Liber revelationum de insidiis et
versutiis daemonum inversus homines_.
Footnote 648:
“... but as I knew it was the Devil,” wrote Luther, “I paid no
attention to him and went to sleep.”
Footnote 649:
_Primitive Culture_, i. p. 409.
Footnote 650:
E. B. Tylor, _Ency. Brit._ ninth ed. vol. vii. p. 63, etc.
Footnote 651:
Cheyne and Black, _Ency. Bib._ art. “Satan,” by Gray and Massie.
F. T. Hall, _The Pedigree of the Devil_. London, 1883.
J. Tulloch in _Ency. Brit._ ninth ed. art. “Devil.”
Footnote 652:
Satan, said Tertullian, is God’s ape. He was indeed supposed to
possess a tail; this might be severed, but it would grow again.
Footnote 653:
A. Reville, _The Devil_, pp. 40, 42. London, 1871.
Footnote 654:
L. W. Cushman, _The Devil and the Vice_. London, 1897.
Footnote 655:
Tylor, _Primitive Culture_, p. 77.
Footnote 656:
P. Verdun, _Le Diable dans la vie des saints_, p. 97.
Footnote 657:
S. Baring Gould, _Lives of the Saints_, v. p. 278. London, 1897.
Footnote 658:
P. Carus, _The History of the Devil_, pp. 255, 256. London, 1900.
Footnote 659:
John Ashton, _The Devil in Britain and America_, p. 87. London, 1896.
Footnote 660:
Carus, _The History of the Devil_, p. 343.
Footnote 661:
R. Burton, _Anatomy of Melancholy_, Pt. i. sec. ii. p. 57, ed. 1806.
Footnote 662:
Maury, _La Magie_, p. 310.
Footnote 663:
The same idea is found among many savages. In a certain tribe referred
to by Dr. Tylor, “The dancing of women by demoniacal possession is
treated ... by the doctor thrashing them soundly with a stick, the
demon, and not the patient, being considered to feel the
blows.”—_Primitive Culture_, ii. p. 124.
Footnote 664:
See, for instance. Abbot Richalmus, capud xxvi. _De efficacia salis et
aquae_.
Footnote 665:
D. H. Tuke, _History of the Insane_, p. 21.
Footnote 666:
In many ancient drawings they are depicted blown from the mouth,
little black monsters mingled in a cloud; there were other manners of
egress.
Footnote 667:
_The Scarlet Letter_, chap. iv.
Footnote 668:
The people even of those early days, say Maury, “bien qu’attribuant la
folie à une cause imaginaire n’en avaient pas moins connu que c’était
une véritable maladie.”—_La Magie_, p. 309.
Footnote 669:
Chap. xxxvii. London, 1542.
Footnote 670:
_Twelfth Night_, Act iii. Sc. 4.
Footnote 671:
W. Besant, _London in the Eighteenth Century_, p. 536.
Footnote 672:
W. E. H. Lecky, _History of England in the Eighteenth Century_, vi. p.
257. London, 1887.
Footnote 673:
Andrew Halliday, _Lunatic Asylums_, p. 10. London, 1828.
Footnote 674:
W. A. F. Browne, _What Asylums were_, p. 105.
Footnote 675:
J. Conolly, _Treatment of the Insane_, p. 7.
Footnote 676:
See M. Esquirol, _Mémoire sur la Maison Royale de Charenton_, p. 10.
Footnote 677:
D. H. Tuke, _Hist._ p. 52.
Footnote 678:
W. Besant, _London in the Time of the Stuarts_, p. 237.
Footnote 679:
J. B. Tuke, art. “Insanity,” _Ency. Brit._ ninth ed.
Footnote 680:
Many asylums were built under the Act of 1808, but before that the
pauper patients had been “crowded into the damp dungeons of our public
workhouses, or shut up in houses of detention and ill-regulated
prisons.”—A. Halliday, _Lunatic Asylums_, p. 10.
Footnote 681:
_Treatment of the Insane._
Footnote 682:
Oscar Wilde, _Ballad of Reading Gaol_, p. 24.
Footnote 683:
Robert Jones, _An Inquiry into the Nature of Nervous Fevers_. London,
1785.
Footnote 684:
W. Cullen, _First Lines of the Practice of Physic_, iv. p. 153.
Edinburgh, 1789.
Footnote 685:
Cullen, p. 171.
Footnote 686:
_Ibid._ p. 164.
See also R. Mead, _Monita et praecepta medica_, p. 67; he says,
however, that fast binding is sufficient. London, 1751.
Footnote 687:
Page 149, _ante_. Dr. Haslam flogged lunatics at stated periods to
avert outbreaks.—Conolly, p. 12.
Footnote 688:
D. H. Tuke, _Hist._ p. 107.
F. Beach, _Psychological Medicine_. He also alludes to John Wesley’s
_Prescriptions_, p. 6, etc.
Andrew Wynter, _The Borderland of Insanity_, J. M. Granville’s ed. p.
70. London, 1877.
Footnote 689:
“The vagrant action of the limbs was suppressed, but the source of
irritation in the brain was left out of consideration.”—Conolly.
Footnote 690:
Quoted by Beach, Hunterian Oration, 1891.
Footnote 691:
W. Massie, _A History of England during the Reign of George III._,
iii. p. 207. London, 1865.
See also J. M. D. Meiklejohn, _Hist. Eng._ Pt. ii. p. 330.
Footnote 692:
Massie, _Hist._ p. 208.
Footnote 693:
Wynter, _Insanity_, p. 80.
Footnote 694:
J. H. Jesse, _Memoirs of the Life of George III._, iii. pp. 95 and
274. Later on he was placed in the better care of Dr. Willis, a
clergyman who was much celebrated for his management of mad people;
see Jesse, iii. p. 90, etc.
Footnote 695:
Hunterian Oration, p. 5.
Footnote 696:
Besant, _London in the Eighteenth Century_, p. 377. See also Charles
Reade’s book, _Hard Cash_.
Footnote 697:
See Conolly’s description of the old-time reception of a private
patient.—_Treatment of the Insane_, p. 138.
Footnote 698:
D. H. Tuke, _Hist._ p. 171.
Footnote 699:
R. Gardner Hill, _Lunacy; its Past and its Present_, p. 7. London,
1870.
Footnote 700:
R. Gardner Hill, p. 6.
Footnote 701:
J. B. Sharpe, _Report and Minutes of Evidence on the Madhouses of
England_; evidence of G. Higgins, pp. 12 and 13; of R. Fowler, p. 308;
and of H. Alabaster, p. 326. London, 1815.
Footnote 702:
_Edinburgh Review_, xxviii. p. 445. Edinburgh, 1817.
Footnote 703:
Jonathan Gray, _History of York Asylum_, p. 12. York, 1815.
Footnote 704:
See Conolly’s amazing denunciation in his _Treatment of the Insane_.
Footnote 705:
A female patient was got with child by the head keeper; he was
subsequently given a piece of plate, and kept a private madhouse of
his own; see Sharpe, _Report and Min. of Ev._ p. 14.
Footnote 706:
Gray, chap. iv.; _ibid._ p. 26; Beach, p. 4.
Footnote 707:
S. W. Nicoll, _An Enquiry into the Present State and Visitation of
Asylums_, p. 10, etc. London, 1828.
Footnote 708:
Sharpe, p. 12; Gray, p. 23.
Footnote 709:
Sharpe, _Report and Min. of Ev._ pp. 277, 290, 297.
Footnote 710:
_Ibid._ p. 46.
Footnote 711:
For instance, at Bethnal Green Asylum.—Beach, p. 12.
Footnote 712:
As late as 1837.—Tuke, _Hist._ p. 81.
Footnote 713:
Sharpe, p. 46.
Footnote 714:
_Ibid._ p. 85.
Footnote 715:
_Ibid._ p. 48.
Footnote 716:
See Besant, _London in the Eighteenth Century_, where a print is given
of this prisoner in his cell at p. 375.
Footnote 717:
_Treatment of the Insane_, p. 28.
Footnote 718:
Sharpe, _Report and Min. of Ev._ p. 120.
Footnote 719:
_Ibid._ p. 59.
Footnote 720:
Tuke, _Hist._ p. 153.
Footnote 721:
Sharpe, _Report and Min. of Ev._ p. 68.
Footnote 722:
For an account of some of these, especially as used in Portugal into
later times, see G. A. Tucker, _Lunacy in Many Lands_, pp. 16, 1346,
etc. Sydney, 1887.
Footnote 723:
John Haslam, _Observations on Madness_, p. 317. London, 1809.
Footnote 724:
Besant, _London in the Eighteenth Century_, p. 377. There is also a
reproduction of Hogarth’s “Scene in Bedlam” from the “Rake’s
Progress.”
Footnote 725:
R. Gardner Hill, _A Concise History of the Non-Restraint System_, p.
139. London, 1857.
Footnote 726:
W. A. F. Browne, p. 119.
Footnote 727:
One large asylum is said to have made £400 a year from exhibiting
lunatics, but this would probably not include the keepers’ tips; see
Tuke, _Hist._ p. 73.
Footnote 728:
Conolly, p. 33. See also P. Pinel, _Traité Médico-philosophique sur
l’Aliénation Mentale_, p. 65. Paris, An IX.
J. B. Tuke, _Ency. Brit._ ninth ed. vol. xiii. p. 111.
Footnote 729:
See E. Westermarck, _Moral Ideas_, i. p. 274.
Footnote 730:
H. W. Carter, _Principal Hospitals_, p. 42. London, 1819.
Footnote 731:
P. Pinel, _Traité_, p. 64.
Footnote 732:
A. Halliday, _Lunatic Asylums_, p. 76.
Footnote 733:
M. Esquirol, _Mémoires de Charenton_, pp. 46, 48.
Footnote 734:
F. Beach, p. 11.
J. Conolly, p. 10.
R. Gardner Hill, _Concise Hist._ p. 141.
Footnote 735:
_Animadversions on the Present Government of York Asylum._ York, 1788.
It deals mainly with the question of finance.
_Edinburgh Review_, vol. xxviii. p. 433.
These produced _A Letter from a Subscriber to the York Lunatic
Asylum_. York, 1788, etc.
Footnote 736:
He died in 1797, and an inscription was erected to him in Westminster
Abbey. See _Dict. Nat. Biog._, and Jonathan Gray, _History of York
Asylum_, p. 18.
Footnote 737:
Samuel Tuke, _Description of the Retreat_, p. 22. York, 1813.
Footnote 738:
The _Description of the Retreat_ near York, already alluded to.
Footnote 739:
To the _York Herald_, dated September 23, 1813. It was signed merely
“Evigilator,” but had been written by Dr. Best, the head of the York
Asylum.
See J. Gray, _Hist._ p. 28; also D. H. Tuke, _Hist._ pp. 129, 148.
Footnote 740:
_Edinburgh Review_, vol. xxviii. p. 433. Edinburgh, 1817.
Footnote 741:
S. W. Nicoll, _An Enquiry_, p. 11; and see Jonathan Gray, _Hist._ p.
31.
Footnote 742:
D. H. Tuke, _Hist._ p. 79.
Footnote 743:
J. Gray, _Hist._ chap. vi.
Footnote 744:
D. H. Tuke, p. 161.
Footnote 745:
D. H. Tuke, p. 157.
Footnote 746:
Nicoll, p. 21.
Footnote 747:
D. H. Tuke, _Hist._ p. 162.
Footnote 748:
_Ibid._ p. 173.
Footnote 749:
J. B. Tuke, _Ency. Brit._ ninth ed.; D. H. Tuke, _Hist._ p. 85; R.
Gardner Hill, _Lunacy_, p. 5.
Footnote 750:
See, for instance, Hunterian Oration, 1891, etc.
Footnote 751:
R. Gardner Hill, _Lunacy_, p. 42.
Footnote 752:
Andrew Wynter, p. 100.
Footnote 753:
Hill, pp. 87, 88.
Footnote 754:
Halliday, _Lunatic Asylums_, p. 2.
Footnote 755:
F. Willis, _A Treatise on Mental Derangement_, p. 6. London, 1823.
Footnote 756:
_Lunatic Asylums_, p. 2.
Footnote 757:
W. A. F. Browne, p. 4.
Footnote 758:
_Borderland of Insanity_, p. 11.
Footnote 759:
Alexander Gibson, in _Ency. Brit._ ninth ed. art. “Insanity (Law).”
Footnote 760:
“That” (kleptomania) “is one of the diseases I was sent here to cure,”
a certain judge is said to have observed; but he did not cure it.
Footnote 761:
One of these legal tests had been a knowledge of the multiplication
table. W. A. F. Browne, p. 3.
Footnote 762:
The “robust” attitude has been shown by Dickens. “That young Pitcher’s
had a fever.” “No!” exclaimed Mr. Squeers. “Damn that boy, he’s always
at something of that sort.” “Never was such a boy, I do believe,” said
Mrs. Squeers; “whatever he has is always catching too. I say it’s
obstinacy, and nothing shall ever convince me that it isn’t. I’d beat
it out of him.”—_Nicholas Nickleby_, chap. vii.
Footnote 763:
D. H. Tuke, _Hist._ p. 96.
Footnote 764:
W. Tallack, _Penological and Preventive Principles_, pp. 249, 250.
London, 1896.
Footnote 765:
_Departmental Committee on Prisons Report_, p. 8. London, 1895.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
● Transcriber’s Notes:
○ Missing or obscured punctuation was silently corrected.
○ Typographical errors were silently corrected.
○ Inconsistent spelling and hyphenation were made consistent only
when a predominant form was found in this book.
The carat characer (^) is used to indicate that the following
letter is a superscript.
○ Text that was in italics is enclosed by underscores (_italics_).
End of Project Gutenberg's Penal Methods of the Middle Ages, by George Ives