The history of Yorkshire cricket is modern in comparison with that of

Surrey, Sussex or Kent. The county club only dates from 1861, and for

some years the team was composed entirely of professionals. But though

Yorkshire attained the championship three times during the first ten

years of the county club's existence, thirteen years elapsed after

1870 before it again occupied the place of honour. In the ten years

1896-1906 Yorkshire was no less than six times at the head of the

list, this position of supremacy being in no small measure due to the

captaincy of Lord Hawke (b. 1860), who played continuously for the

county from his university days for more than twenty years, and whose

influence on Yorkshire cricket was unique. But before his time

Yorkshire had already produced some notable cricketers, such as George

Ulyett (1857-1898), who headed the batting averages in 1878, and who

was also a fine fast bowler; Louis Hall (b. 1852), a patient bat; and

another excellent scorer, Ephraim Lockwood (b. 1845). William Bates

(1855-1900), too, was effective both as batsman and bowler; and Tom

Emmett (1841-1904), long proverbial for bowling "a wide and a wicket,"

was deservedly popular. To the earlier period belonged two fast

bowlers, George Freeman (1844-1895) and Allan Hill (b. 1845), and the

eminent wicket-keeper Pincher (1841-1903), who was succeeded by J.

Hunter (1857-1891), and later by his brother Daniel Hunter (b. 1862).

The full effect of Lord Hawke's energetic captaincy was seen in 1900,

when Yorkshire played through a programme of twenty-eight fixtures

without sustaining a defeat; and the county's record was but little

inferior in both the following years and again in 1905, in each of

which years it retained the championship. It was during this period

that as notable a group of cricketers wore the Yorkshire colours as

ever appeared in county matches. Edmund Peate (1856-1900), one of the

finest bowlers in his day, did not survive to take part in the later

triumphs of his county; but the period beginning in 1890 saw J. T.

Brown, J. Tunnicliffe, R. Peel, W. Rhodes, George Hirst and the Hon.

F. S. Jackson in the field. The two first named became famous for

their first wicket partnerships. In 1896 in a match against Middlesex

at Lord's these two batsmen scored 139 before being separated in the

first innings, and in the second knocked off the 147 required to win

the match. In the following year they made 378 for the first wicket

against Surrey, and during their careers they scored over a hundred

for the first wicket on no less than fifteen occasions, the greatest

feat of all being in 1898, when they beat the world's record by

staying together till 554 runs had been compiled. Peel was for many

years an untiring bowler, and Yorkshire was fortunate in discovering a

successor of even superior skill in Wilfrid Rhodes, who in 1900 took

over 200 wickets at a cost of 12 runs each in county matches alone,

and was also an excellent bat. Hirst and Jackson were the two finest

all-round cricketers in England about 1905. The Hon. F. S. Jackson (b.

1870), like his fellow-Harrovian A. C. MacLaren, had a wonderful

record in test matches against Australia; he captained the England

eleven in 1905, and his wonderful nerve enabled him to extricate his

side when in a difficulty, and to render his best service at an

emergency. Hirst (b. 1871) in 1904 and in 1905 scored over 2000 runs

and took more than 100 wickets; and in 1906 he surpassed all previous

records by scoring over 2000 runs and taking over 200 wickets during

the season. A concourse of 78,000 people watched his "benefit" match

(Yorkshire against Lancashire) in August 1904. Besides cricketers like

these, such fine players were included in the team as Wainwright (b.

1865), Haigh (b. 1871), Denton (b. 1874), and E. Smith (b. 1869); with

such material the Yorkshire eleven had no "tail," and was able to win

the championship six times in a decade.

Somersetshire.

Somersetshire hardly fulfilled the promise held out by the success

achieved in the closing decade of the 19th century; this had been

largely owing to the captaincy and brilliant batting of H. T. Hewett

(b. 1864), who in partnership with L. C. H. Palairet (b. 1870), famous

for his polished style, scored 346 for the first wicket in a match

against Yorkshire in 1892. Hewett was succeeded in the command of the

county eleven by the Cambridge fast bowler, S. M. J. Woods (b. 1868);

and among other members of the eleven the most valuable was L. C.

Braund (b. 1876), a professional who excelled as an all-round

cricketer.

Minor counties.

The counties above referred to are those which have figured most

prominently in the history of county cricket. Individual players of

the highest excellence are, however, to be found from time to time in

all parts of the country. Warwickshire, for example, can boast of

having had in A. A. Lilley (b. 1867) the best wicket-keeper of his

day, who represented England against Australia in the test matches;

while Worcestershire produced one of the best all-round professionals

in the country for a number of years in Arnold (b. 1877), and a

batsman of extreme brilliancy in R. E. Foster, a member of a

cricketing family to whom belongs the credit of raising Worcestershire

into a cricketing county of the first class. Derbyshire, similarly,

can claim some well-known cricket names, the bowler W. Mycroft

(1841-1894), W. Chatterton (b. 1863), and W. Storer (b. 1868), a

first-class wicket-keeper. Essex possesses at Leyton one of the best

county grounds in the country, and the club was helped over financial

difficulties by the munificent support of an old Uppingham and

Cambridge cricketer, C. E. Green. It has produced a fair number of

excellent players, notably the batsmen P. Perrin, C. MacGahey, and the

fast bowler C. J. Kortright; and A. P. Lucas, afterwards a member of

the county club, was a famous cricketer who played for England in 1880

in the first Australian test match. Hampshire had a fine batsman in

Captain E. G. Wynyard, and its annals are conspicuous for the

phenomenal scores made during the single season of 1899 by Major R. M.

Poore; these two put together 411 against Somersetshire in that year

before being separated. Among the later Hants professionals, Llewellyn

was most prominent.

The distribution of cricketing ability in England might be the subject

of some interesting speculation. In the first forty years of the

annual competition for the championship six counties alone gained the

coveted distinction, and three of these, Surrey, Notts and Yorkshire,

won it thirty-four times between them. Why, it may be asked, is it

that one county excels in the game while another has no place whatever

in the history of cricket? How comes it that great names recur

continually in the annals of Surrey and Yorkshire, for example, while

those of Berkshire and Lincolnshire are entirely barren? No doubt

proximity to great centres of population favours the cultivation of

the game, but in this respect Kent and Sussex are no better situated

than Hertfordshire, nor does it account for Nottinghamshire having so

illustrious a record while Staffordshire has none at all, nor for

Somersetshire having outclassed Devon. It is strange, moreover, that

while the universities are the chief training-grounds for amateur

cricketers, neither Oxfordshire nor Cambridgeshire has made any mark

among the counties. The influence of individuals and families, such as

the Graces in Gloucestershire, the Walkers in Middlesex, and in recent

times the Fosters in Worcestershire, has of course been of inestimable

benefit to cricket in those counties; but Buckinghamshire and Norfolk

and Cheshire send their sons to the public schools and universities no

less than Lancashire or Kent. It is difficult, therefore, to

understand why county cricket should so persistently confine itself to

a small number of counties; but such is the fact.

Cricket has never flourished vigorously in Scotland, Ireland or Wales,

a fact that may partly be accounted for by the comparative difficulty

of obtaining good grounds in those parts of the kingdom, and by the

inferiority, for the purpose of cricket, of their climate. In the

south of Scotland, and especially in the neighbourhood of Edinburgh,

there are clubs which keep the game alive; and Scotland, though it has

produced no great cricketers, either amateur or professional, has sent

a few players to the English university elevens who have found places

in English county teams. In Ireland cricket is fairly popular,

especially in those parts of the island where local sides can obtain

assistance from soldiers quartered in the neighbourhood. One or two

counties play annual matches, that between Kildare and Cork in

particular exciting keen rivalry. Trinity College, Dublin, has turned

out some excellent players; and the Phoenix and Leinster clubs in

Dublin, and the North of Ireland club in Belfast, play a full

programme of matches every season. D. N. Trotter, who played for

county Meath for many years towards the close of the 19th century, was

a batsman who would have found a place in any English county eleven;

so also would William Hone, one of several brothers all of whom were

keen and skilful cricketers. About the same period Lieutenant Dunn

scored so many centuries in Irish cricket that he was played, though

without any great success, for his native county of Surrey. More

recently L. H. Gwynn (1873-1902) batted in a style and with a success

that proved him capable of great things. Sir T. C. O'Brien, though an

Irishman, belongs as a cricketer to Middlesex; but T. C. Ross, who was

chosen to play for Gentlemen v. Players at Lord's in 1902, was a

bowler who played regularly for county Kildare.

_Gentlemen v. Players._--The most important match of the year as far

as purely English cricket is concerned is the match between the

gentlemen and players (amateurs and professionals) played at Lord's.

For many years a match played between sides similarly composed at the

Oval excited equal interest, but latterly county cricket has rather

starved this particular game, though it still continues as a popular

fixture. Other matches with the same title have been played in London

on Prince's Ground (now built over), and at Brighton, Hastings and

Scarborough and elsewhere, but those games in no way rank with the

London matches.

The Lord's fixture was first established in 1806, in which year two

matches were played; it became annual in 1819, but in those days the

amateurs, being no match for their opponents, generally received odds,

while in 1832 they defended wickets 22 in. by 6, and in 1837 the

professionals stood in front of wickets of four stumps, measuring in

all 36 in. by 12 in. This match was known as "The Barndoor Match" or

"Ward's Folly," and the professionals won by an innings and 10 runs.

Odds were not given after 1838, the gentlemen having then won eight

matches and lost thirteen. From 1839 to 1866 the gentlemen only won 7

matches as compared with 21 losses. In 1867 the tide turned, for the

brothers Grace, especially Dr W. G. Grace, became a power in the

cricket-field, and from 1867 to 1884 the gentlemen, winning fifteen

matches, only lost one. From 1885 the balance swung round, and by 1903

the professionals had won eleven matches and lost but four. The

gentlemen won on nine successive occasions between 1874 and 1884, a

draw intervening; while beginning with 1854 the professionals won

eleven matches "off the reel." The professionals won in 1860 by an

innings and no less than 181 runs; in 1900 they only won by two

wickets, but to do so had to make, and did make, 501 runs in the last

innings of the match. In 1903 the gentlemen, heavily in arrears after

each side had played an innings, actually scored 500 in their second

innings with only two men out. In 1904 the gentlemen won by two

wickets after being 156 runs behind on the first innings, thanks to

fine play by K. S. Ranjitsinhji and A. O. Jones. J. H. King had scored

a century in each innings, a feat previously only performed by R. E.

Foster in 1900. C. B. Fry's 232 not out in 1903 was the largest

innings scored in the match. Dr W. G. Grace, who is credited with

eight centuries, is the only cricketer who exceeded the hundred more

than twice at Lord's in the fixture, 164 by J. T. Brown being the

highest innings by a professional. There were seven instances before

1864 of two bowlers being unchanged in the match, and the Hon. F. S.

Jackson and S. M. J. Woods repeated this in 1894. The Oval match was

first played in 1857. The amateurs effected their first win in 1866,

and though several games were drawn the professionals did not win

again till 1880. As at Lord's, it was the era of Grace, but from this

point the amateurs could only win two matches, and by the narrowest of

margins, till 1903, this making their sum of victories up to then

thirteen, as opposed to twenty-three. In 1879 the gentlemen won in one

innings by 126 runs, the heaviest beating that one side had inflicted

on the other. The highest individual score was Robert Abel's 247, and

the next Dr W. G. Grace's 215. Hayward scored 203 in 1904; A. G. Steel

and A. H. Evans bowled unchanged in 1879.

_School and Club Cricket._--Cricket is the standing summer game at

every English private and public school, where it is taught as

carefully and systematically as either classics or mathematics. There

are also numbers of amateur clubs which possess no grounds of their

own and are connected with no particular locality, but which are in

fact mere associations of cricketers who play matches against the

universities, schools or local teams, or against each other. Of these

the best known, perhaps, is I Zingari (The Wanderers), popularly known

as I.Z., whose well-known colours, red, yellow and black stripes, are

prized rather as a social than as a cricketing distinction. This club

was founded in 1845 by Lorraine Baldwin and Sir Spencer Ponsonby-Fane.

The first rule of the club humorously declares that "the entrance fee

shall be nothing, and the annual subscription shall not exceed the

entrance fee." It is a rule of the club that no member shall play on

the opposing side. I.Z. has long been connected with the social

festivities forming a feature of the "Canterbury Week," a cricket

festival held at Canterbury during the first week in August, of the

Scarborough week, and of the Dublin horse-show. Dr W. G. Grace, who

almost invariably appeared in the cricket field wearing the red and

yellow stripes of the M.C.C., and some other notable amateurs, never

belonged to I.Z. or any similar club; but Dr Grace was instrumental in

the formation of the London county club, whose ground was at the

Crystal Palace at Sydenham. Other amateur clubs, similar to I Zingari,

are the Free Foresters, Incogniti, Etceteras, and in Ireland Na

Shuler; while the Eton Ramblers, Harrow Wanderers, Old Wykehamists,

and others are clubs whose membership is restricted to "old boys."

The Oxford and Cambridge universities match was first played in 1827,

but was not an annual fixture till 1838. Five matches, those of 1829,

1843, 1846, 1848 and 1850, were played at Oxford, the rest at Lord's.

The "'Varsity match," and that between the two great public schools,

Eton and Harrow, are great "society" events at Lord's every summer. Up

to 1909 Eton won thirty times, and Harrow on thirty-five occasions. D.

C. Boles by scoring 183 in 1904 set up a new record for this match,

beating the 152 obtained in 1841 by Emilius Bayley (afterwards the

Rev. Sir John Robert Laurie); and in 1907 the Harrow captain, M. C.

Bird, established a further record by scoring over a hundred runs in

each innings. Of the contests between Oxford and Cambridge, the latter

(up to 1909) had lost thirty-one and won thirty-five. Oxford's 503 in

1900 and Cambridge's 392 in the same match furnished the highest

aggregates. The largest individual innings was 172 not out by J. F.

Marsh in 1904; but as a feat of batting it was intrinsically inferior

to the 171 by R. E. Foster in 1900. Of the thirty centuries scored up

to 1909, Oxford was credited with sixteen. Eustace Crawley (b. 1868)

made a hundred both in the Eton v. Harrow and Oxford v. Cambridge

matches. In the match of 1870 F. C. Cobden (b. 1849) took the last

three Oxford wickets with consecutive balls, winning the match for

Cambridge by 2 runs.

_Australian Cricket._--Naturally popular in a British colony, cricket

made but little progress in Australia before the arrival of an English

professional eleven in 1861-1862, which carried all before it.

Subsequent visits, and the coaching of imported professionals, so

promoted the game that in 1878 a representative eleven of Australians

visited England. The visits were repeated biennially till 1890, and

then triennially. The visits of the Australian teams to England

aroused unparalleled interest and acted as an immense incentive to the

game. A great sensation was caused when the first team, captained by

D. W. Gregory, on the 27th of May 1878, defeated a powerful M.C.C.

eleven in a single day, disposing of them for 33 and 19, the fast

bowler F. R. Spofforth (b. 1853) taking 6 wickets for 4 runs, and H.

F. Boyle (b. 1847) 5 for 3. Their prowess was well maintained when in

September 1880 Australia for the first time met the whole strength of

England, such matches between representatives of Australia and England

being known as "test matches," a term that was applied later to

matches between England and South Africans also. Although in 1880 the

old country won by 5 wickets, the honours were fairly divided,

especially as Spofforth could not play. Dr W. G. Grace with a score of

152 headed the total of 420, but even finer was the Australian captain

W. L. Murdoch's imperturbable display, when he carried his bat for

153. From 1882 onwards the Colonials, with two exceptions, at

Blackpool and Skegness, only played eleven-a-side matches. Such

bowlers as Spofforth, Boyle, G. E. Palmer (b. 1861), T. W. Garrett (b.

1858), and G. Giffen (1859) became household names. Nor was the

batting less admirable, for Murdoch was supported by H. H. Massie (b.

1854), P. S. McDonnell (1860-1896), A. C. Bannerman (b. 1859), T.

Horan (b. 1855), C. J. Bonnor (b. 1855), and S. P. Jones (b. 1861),

whilst the wicket-keeper was McCarthy Blackham (b. 1855). This

visiting side in 1882 was the greatest team of all; 23 matches were

won, only 4 lost, and England was defeated at the Oval by 7 runs. In

1884 English cricket had improved, and the visiting record was hardly

so good. The match against England at the Oval will not soon be

forgotten. The Colonials scored 551 (Murdoch 211, McDonnell 103, Scott

102), and England responded with 346, Scotton and W. W. Read adding

151 for the ninth wicket.

The team of H. J. H. Scott (b. 1858) in 1886 proved less successful,

for all three test matches were lost, and eight defeats had to be set

against nine victories, but Giffen covered himself with distinction.

This was the first tour under the auspices of the Melbourne Club.

McDonnell's team in 1888 marked the appearance of the bowlers C. T. B.

Turner (b. 1862) and J. J. Ferris (1867-1900). The former took 314

wickets for 11 runs each, and the latter 220 for 14 apiece. To all

appearance they redeemed a poor tour, 19 matches being won and 14

lost. The 1890 tour, though Murdoch reappeared as captain, proved

disappointing, both the test matches being lost and defeats for the

first time exceeding victories, though the two bowlers again performed

marvellously well. After an interval of three years, M. Blackham

captained the seventh team, which was moderately fortunate. H. Graham

(b. 1870) and S. E. Gregory (b. 1870) batted admirably, and the 149 of

J. J. Lyons (b. 1863) in the match against M.C.C. was an extraordinary

display of punishing cricket. In 1896, though they did not win the

rubber of test matches, the colonials were most successful, 19 matches

being victories and only 6 lost. S. E. Gregory, J. Darling (b. 1870),

F. A. Iredale (b. 1867), G. Giffen, C. Hill (b. 1877), and G. H. S.

Trott (1866-1905) were the best bats, and the last-named made an

admirable captain. H. Trumble (1867) kept an excellent length, and E.

Jones (1869) was deadly with his fast bowling.

The Australian representatives in 1899 demonstrated that they were the

best since 1882, 16 successes and only 3 defeats (v. Essex, Surrey and

Kent) being emphasized by a victory over England at Lord's by 10

wickets, the only one of the five test matches brought to a

conclusion. M. A. Noble (b. 1873) and Victor Trumper (b. 1877), both

newcomers, batted superbly. The latter, v. Sussex, made 300, the

largest individual score hitherto made by an Australian in England,

the previous best having been 286 by Murdoch in the corresponding

match in 1882. H. Trumble scored 1183 runs and took 142 wickets for 18

runs apiece, and Darling not only made a judicious captain, but scored

the biggest aggregate, 1941, up to then obtained by any batsman

touring with a colonial eleven in England. On the home side, Hayward

did sound service with the bat, and his stand with F. S. Jackson in

the fifth test match yielded 185 runs for the first wicket.

In 1902 another fine Australian eleven, captained by Darling, won 23

and lost only 2 matches. They won the rubber of test matches at

Manchester by 3 runs, but lost the final at the Oval by one wicket

after an even more remarkable struggle, G. L. Jessop having scored 104

in an hour and a quarter. The other defeat was by Yorkshire by 5

wickets, when they were dismissed for 23 by Hirst and Jackson. The

rest of the tour was characterized by brilliant batting. The

performance of Trumper in making 2570 runs (with an average of 48)

surpassed anything previously seen; R. A. Duff (b. 1878) also proved a

brilliant run-getter. W. W. Armstrong (b. 1879) was useful in all

departments, and J. V. Saunders (b. 1876) proved a successful

left-handed bowler.

In 1905 there was a marked falling-off, as England won two and drew

the other three test matches; but only one other defeat, by Essex by

19 runs, had to be set against 16 Australian victories. The persistent

bowling off the wicket by Armstrong, and the inability to finish games

within three days, were the chief drawbacks. Armstrong eclipsed all

previous colonial records in England by heading both tables of

averages, scoring 2002 (average 48) and taking 130 wickets at a cost

of 17 runs each. He also compiled the largest individual score (303

not out v. Somerset) ever made on an Australian tour. M. A. Noble also

exceeded 2000 runs. For a long time the fast bowler, A. Cotter (b.

1882, N.S.W.), failed, but eventually "came off," just as F. Laver (b.

1869), who had taken many wickets in the earlier part of the tour, was

becoming less formidable. Duff saved the colonials by a great innings

in the fifth test match; Trumper was less certain than formerly, and

Clement Hill more reckless; whilst J. J. Kelly (b. 1867) on his fifth

tour was better than ever before with the gloves.

The Australians who visited England under the leadership of M. A.

Noble in 1909 were generally held to be a weaker team than most of

their predecessors, but they greatly improved as the season advanced,

proving that the side included several cricketers of the highest

merit, and as a captain Noble has seldom been surpassed in consummate

generalship. Their record of thirteen wins to four defeats offered

little evidence of inferiority, while the large number of twenty-one

drawn matches was accounted for by the cold wet weather that largely

prevailed throughout the summer. Two out of the five test matches were

unfinished, and Australia won the rubber by two matches to one. In all

the test matches England was under the command of A. C. MacLaren, but

the great Harrovian was no longer the batsman he had been some years

earlier; Jackson had abandoned first-class cricket; Hirst and Hayward

were becoming veterans; and, speaking generally, the English batting

was decidedly inferior, and it collapsed feebly in three of the test

matches. England's failure, for which poor fielding and missed catches

were also responsible, was the more disappointing since they began

well by winning the first test match at Birmingham by ten wickets. C.

B. Fry and Hobbs knocking off the 105 runs required to win in the

second innings without the loss of a wicket. In the third test match,

at Leeds, England was deprived of the services of Hayward and Blythe

through illness, and an accident to Jessop during the match compelled

the side to play a man short. It was in bowling that the Australians

were thought to be least strong; but Laver's analysis in the

Manchester test match, when he took 8 wickets for 31 runs in England's

first innings, was the most notable feature of the match; and although

his record at the head of the bowling averages for the tour, 70

wickets at an average cost of 14.9 runs, had frequently been beaten in

earlier Australian tours in England, it proved him a worthy successor

of Spofforth, Boyle and Turner. Armstrong, although he did not equal

his record of 1905, again scored over 1000 runs and took over 100

wickets, his exact figures being 1439 runs and 120 wickets. The most

remarkable Australian batting was that of two young left-handed

players who on this occasion visited England for the first time, W.

Bardsley (b. 1884) and Vernon Ransford (b. 1885), the latter of whom

headed the averages both for test matches (58.8) and for the whole

tour (45.5), his principal achievement being an innings of 143 not out

in the test match at Lord's. Bardsley, who was second in the test

matches averages (39.6), fell into the third place slightly below

Armstrong in the averages for the tour; but he alone scored over 200

in an innings, which he accomplished twice, and over 2000 in aggregate

for the tour, and he established a test match "record" by scoring 136

and 130 in the match at the Oval. Of the twenty-two "centuries" scored

by Australians during the season Bardsley and Ransford each made six.

Trumper and Noble each scored over a thousand runs, and Macartney was

an invaluable member of the side both in batting and bowling. As a

wicket-keeper Carter worthily filled the place of Kelly, and the

fielding of the Colonials fully maintained the brilliant Australian

standard of former years.

The following "records" of Australian cricket in England up to 1909

are of interest:--Highest total by an Australian team: 843 v. Past and

Present of Oxford and Cambridge Universities in 1893. Highest total

against an Australian team: 576 by England at the Oval in 1899. Lowest

total by an Australian team: 18 v. M.C.C. in 1896. Lowest total

against an Australian team: 17 by Gloucestershire in 1896. Highest

individual Australian score in one innings: 303 not out by W. W.

Armstrong v. Somersetshire in 1905. Highest individual Australian

aggregate in a tour: 2570 by V. T. Trumper in 1902. Two centuries in a

match: V. T. Trumper 109 and 119 v. Essex in 1902; W. Bardsley 136 and

130 v. England in 1909 (test match record).

The following table shows the Australians who headed the batting and

bowling averages respectively in tours in England up to 1909.

_Batting._

+------+------------------------+----+----+------+------+-------+

| | | |Not | | | |

| Year.| |Inn.|out.| Runs.| Most.| Aver. |

+------+------------------------+----+----+------+------+-------+

| 1878 | C. Bannerman, N.S.W. | 31 | 1 | 723 | 133 | 24.10 |

| 1880 | W. L. Murdoch, N.S.W. | 19 | 1 | 465 | *153 | 25.80 |

| 1882 | W. L. Murdoch, N.S.W. | 61 | 5 | 1711 | *286 | 30.50 |

| 1884 | W. L. Murdoch, N.S.W. | 50 | 5 | 1378 | 211 | 30.60 |

| 1886 | G. Giffen, S.A. | 63 | 9 | 1453 | 119 | 26.90 |

| 1888 | P. M'Donnell, V. | 62 | 1 | 1393 | 105 | 22.50 |

| 1890 | W. L. Murdoch, N.S.W. | 64 | 2 | 1459 | *158 | 23.33 |

| 1893 | H. Graham, V. | 55 | 3 | 1492 | 219 | 28.36 |

| 1896 | S. E. Gregory, N.S.W. | 48 | 2 | 1464 | 154 | 31.38 |

| 1899 | J. Darling, S.A. | 56 | 9 | 1941 | 167 | 41.29 |

| 1902 | V. T. Trumper, N.S.W. | 53 | 0 | 2570 | 128 | 48.49 |

| 1905 | W. W. Armstrong, V. | 48 | 7 | 2002 | *303 | 48.82 |

| 1909 | V. S. Ransford | 43 | 4 | 1778 | 190 | 45.58 |

+------+------------------------+----+----+------+------+-------+

* Not out.

_Bowling._

+------+------------------------+--------+------+------+-----+-------+

| Year.| | O. | M. | R. | W. | Aver. |

+------+------------------------+--------+------+------+-----+-------+

| 1878 | T. W. Garrett, N.S.W. | 296.2 | 144 | 394 | 38 | 10.30 |

| 1880 | F. R. Spofforth, N.S.W.| 240.8 | 82 | 396 | 46 | 8.60 |

| 1882 | H. F. Boyle, V. | 1200.14| 525 | 1680 | 144 | 11.60 |

| 1884 | F. R. Spofforth, N.S.W.| 1544.32| 649 | 2642 | 216 | 12.20 |

| 1886 | G. Giffen, S.A. | 1693.26| 722 | 2711 | 159 | 17.05 |

| 1888 | C. T. B. Turner, N.S.W.| 2589.3 | 1222 | 3492 | 314 | 11.38 |

| 1890 | C. T. B. Turner, N.S.W.| 1651.1 | 724 | 2725 | 215 | 12.45 |

| 1893 | C. T. B. Turner, N.S.W.| 1148 | 450 | 2202 | 160 | 13.12 |

| 1896 | T. R. M'Kibbin, N.S.W. | 647.1 | 198 | 1441 | 101 | 14.27 |

| 1899 | H. Trumble, V. | 1249.1 | 431 | 2618 | 142 | 18.43 |

| 1902 | H. Trumble, V. | 948 | 305 | 1998 | 140 | 14.27 |

| 1905 | W. W. Armstrong, V. | 1027 | 308 | 2288 | 130 | 17.60 |

| 1909 | F. Laver | 495.5 | 161 | 1048 | 70 | 14.97 |

+------+------------------------+--------+------+------+-----+-------+

The first English team to visit Australia was organized in 1862, and

was captained by H. H. Stephenson. George Parr (1826-1891) took out

the next in 1864, Dr E. M. Grace being the only amateur. In 1873 the

Melbourne Club invited Dr W. G. Grace to take out an eleven, and

three years later James Lillywhite conducted a team of professionals.

On this tour for the first time colonials contended on equal terms,

one match v. Australia being won by 4 wickets and the other lost by 45

runs. Lord Harris in the autumn of 1878 took a team of amateurs

assisted by Ulyett and Emmett, winning 2 and losing 3 eleven-a-side

encounters, Emmett's 137 wickets averaging 8 runs each. Shaw,

Shrewsbury and Lillywhite jointly organized the expedition of 1881,

when Australia won the second test match by 5 wickets. The Hon. Ivo

Bligh (afterwards Lord Darnley) in 1882 took a fine team, which was

crippled owing to an injury sustained by the bowler F. Morley. Four

victories could be set against three defeats; Australia winning the

only test match, owing to the batting of Blackham. Shaw's second tour

in 1884 showed Barnes heading both batting and bowling averages, while

six victories counterbalanced two defeats. In the third tour

Shrewsbury became captain, but the English for the first time

encountered the bowling of C. T. B. Turner, who took 27 wickets for

113 runs in two matches. Australia was twice defeated, the English

captain batting in fine form. On this tour was played the Smokers v.

Non-Smokers, when the latter scored 803 for 9 wickets (Shrewsbury 236,

W. Bruce 131, Gunn 150), against the bowling of Briggs, Boyle,

Lohmann, Palmer and Flowers. The winter of 1887 saw two English teams

in Australia, one under Lord Hawke and G. F. Vernon, the other under

Shrewsbury and Lillywhite. Both teams played well, the batting being

headed by W. W. Read with an average of 65, and Shrewsbury with 58.

The ill-success of Lord Sheffield's team in two out of three test

matches did not disprove the great merits of his eleven. Dr W. G.

Grace headed the averages with 44, and received the best support from

Abel and A. E. Stoddart, whilst Attewell, Briggs and Lohmann all

possessed fine bowling figures. A. E. Stoddart's first team (in 1894)

achieved immense success and was the best of all. In the first test

match they went in against 586 runs and ultimately won by 10 runs,

Ward making 75 and 117. Stoddart himself averaged 51, scoring 173 in

the second test match, and A. C. MacLaren (who made 228 v. Victoria),

Brown and Ward all averaged over 40. The last tour conducted by

Stoddart proved less satisfactory, four of the five test matches being

lost, and some friction being caused by various incidents. K. S.

Ranjitsinhji, who averaged 60 and made 175 in a test match and 189 v.

South Australia, and A. C. MacLaren, who scored five hundreds and

averaged 54, were prominent, Hayward also doing good work; but the

bowling broke down. Weakness in bowling was the cause of the ill

success of A. C. MacLaren's side in 1901. After a brilliant victory by

an innings and 124 runs at Sydney, the other four test matches were

all lost. MacLaren himself batted magnificently, and so did Hayward

and Tyldesley. Braund stood alone as an all-round man. The M.C.C. in

1903 officially despatched a powerful side led by P. F. Warner, and in

every sense except the financial the success was complete. Three test

matches were won and two lost, while two new records were set up, one

by Rhodes obtaining 15 wickets at Melbourne, the other by R. E.

Foster, who in seven hours of brilliant batting compiled 287.

Tyldesley and Hayward both did good work as batsmen; Rhodes and Braund

both bowled consistently. The catch-phrase about "bringing back the

ashes" became almost proverbial; its origin is to be found in the

_Sporting Times_ in 1882 after Australia had defeated England at the

Oval.

_New Zealand._--Although cricket has not attained a degree of

perfection in New Zealand commensurate with that in Australia, it is

keenly played. Lord Hawke sent out from England a team in 1902-1903

which won all the eighteen matches arranged.

_Cricket in India._--Not only the English who live in India, but the

natives also--Parsees, Hindus and Mahommedans alike--play cricket. A

Parsee eleven visited England in 1884 and 1888.

_South Africa._--South African cricketers visiting England are

handicapped by playing on turf instead of on the matting wickets used

in South Africa. The side which came over during the Boer War in 1901

won 13, lost 9, and drew 2 matches, playing a tie with Worcestershire,

and showing marked improvement on the team which had visited England

in 1894. E. A. Halliwell (b. 1864) proved a fine wicket-keeper, J. H.

Sinclair (b. 1876) a good all-round cricketer, J. J. Kotze (b. 1879) a

very fast bowler, and G. A. Rowe (b. 1872) clever with the ball. In

1904 more decided success was achieved, for on a more ambitious

programme ten victories could be set against two defeats by

Worcestershire and Kent, with a tie with Middlesex. The most important

success was a victory by 189 runs over a powerful England eleven at

Lord's, when R. O. Schwarz (b. 1875) scored 102 and 26, and took 8

wickets for 106, dismissing Ranjitsinhji twice. Kotze and Sinclair

again bore the brunt of the attack. Of the English teams visiting

South Africa, that taken by Lord Hawke in 1894 did not meet with such

important opposition as the one he led in 1900, yet the side came back

undefeated, having won all three test matches. P. F. Warner and F.

Mitchell, with Tyldesley, were the chief run-getters, Haigh, Trott and

Cuttell bowling finely. In the winter of 1905 the M.C.C. sent out a

side under P. F. Warner, but it lost four out of the five test

matches, F. L. Fane and J. N. Crawford being the most successful of

the Englishmen, and G. C. White (1882) and A. D. Nourse proving

themselves great colonial batsmen. In 1907 a representative South

African team came to England, and their improved status in the

cricketing world was shown by the arrangement of test matches. In the

winter of 1909-1910 an English team under Mr Leveson Gower went to

South Africa, and played test matches.

_West Indies._--West Indian cricketers toured in England in 1900,

winning 5 matches and losing 8. The best batsman was C. A. Olivierre

(b. 1876), who subsequently qualified for Derbyshire. The brunt of the

bowling devolved on S. Woods and T. Burton (b. 1878). In 1897 teams

under Lord Hawke and A. Priestly (b. 1865) both visited West Indies,

Trinidad defeating both powerful combinations. R. S. Lucas (b. 1867)

had in 1895 taken out a successful side. A much weaker combination in

1902 suffered five defeats but won 13 matches. B. J. T. Bosanquet, E.

R. Wilson (b. 1879) and E. M. Dowson (b. 1880) were the chief

performers. In 1906 another West Indian side visited England, but were

not particularly successful.

_America._--In the United States cricket has always had to contend

with the popularity of baseball, and in Canada with the rival

attractions of lacrosse. Nevertheless it has grown in popularity,

Philadelphia being the headquarters of the game in the New World.

The Germantown, Belmont, Merion and Philadelphia Clubs play annually

for the Halifax Cup, and the game is controlled by the Associated

Cricket clubs of Philadelphia. In the neighbourhood of New York

matches are arranged by the Metropolitan District Cricket League and

the New York Cricket Association; similar organizations are the

Northwestern, the California and the Massachusetts associations, while

the Intercollegiate Cricket League consists of college teams

representing Harvard, Pennsylvania and Haverford. R. S. Newhall (b.

1852) and D. S. Newhall (b. 1849) may almost claim to be the fathers

of cricket in the United States; while D. W. Saunders (b. 1862) did

much for the game in Canada. Other eminent names in American cricket

are A. M. Wood; H. Livingston, of the Pittsburg Club, who scored three

centuries in one week in 1907; H. V. Hordern, University of

Pennsylvania, a very successful bowler; J. B. King, who in 1906 made

344 not out for Belmont v. Merion, and who as a fast bowler proved

most effective during two tours in England. At San Francisco in 1894

W. Robertson and A. G. Sheath compiled a total of 340 without the loss

of a wicket, the former scoring 206 not out, and the latter 118 not

out. A large number of English cricket teams have visited the United

States and Canada. The first county to do so was Kent in 1904, in

which year the Philadelphians also made a tour in England, in the

course of which J. B. King (b. 1873) took 93 wickets at an average

cost of 14 runs, and proved himself the best all-round man on the

side. P. H. Clark (b. 1873), a clever fast bowler, and J. A. Lester

(b. 1872), the captain of the team, also showed themselves to be

cricketers of merit, while N. Z. Graves (b. 1880) and F. H. Bohlen (b.

1868) were quite up to English county form. The team did not, however,

include G. S. Patterson (b. 1868), one of the best batsmen in America.

The Philadelphians again visited Great Britain in 1908, when they won

7 out of 14 matches, one being drawn. On this tour King surpassed his

former English record by taking 115 wickets, and Wood, who played one

fine innings of 132, was the most successful of the American batsmen.

_Other Countries._--The English residents of Portugal support the

game, but were no match for a moderate English team that visited them

in 1898. In Holland, chiefly at the Hague and Haarlem, cricket is

played to a limited extent on matting wickets. Dutch elevens have

visited England, and English elevens have crossed to Holland, the most

important visit being that of the gentlemen of the M.C.C. in 1902, the

Englishmen winning all the matches.

_Professionalism._--The remuneration of the first-class English

professionals is L6 per match, out of which expenses have to be paid;

a man engaged on a ground to bowl receives from L2, 10s. to L3, 10s. a

week when not away playing matches. A professional player generally

receives extra reward for good batting or bowling, the amount being

sometimes a fixed sum of L1 for every fifty runs, more frequently a

sum awarded by the committee on the recommendation of the captain.

Some counties give their men winter pay, others try to provide them

with suitable work when cricket is over. A few get cricket in other

countries during the English winter. For international matches

professional players and "reserves" receive L20 each, though before

1896 the fee was only L10; players (and reserves) in Gentlemen v.

Players at Lord's are paid L10. A good county professional generally

receives a "benefit" after about ten years' service; but the amount of

the proceeds varies capriciously with the weather, the duration of the

match, and the attendance. In the populous northern counties of

England benefits are far more lucrative than in the south, but L800 to

L1000 may be regarded as a good average result. County clubs generally

exercise some control over the sums received. Umpires are paid L6 a

match; in minor games they receive about L1 a day.

_Records._--Records other than those already cited may be added for

reference. A schoolboy named A. E. J. Collins, at Clifton College in

1899, excited some interest by scoring 628 not out in a boy's match,

being about seven hours at the wicket. C. J. Eady (b. 1870) scored 566

for Break o' Day v. Wellington in eight hours in 1902, the total being

911. A. E. Stoddart made 485 for Hampstead v. Stoics in 1886. In

first-class cricket the highest individual score for a batsman is A.

C. MacLaren's 424 for Lancashire v. Somerset at Taunton in 1895.

Melbourne University scored 1094 against Essendon in March 1898, this

being the highest authenticated total on record. M.C.C. and Ground

made 735 v. Wiltshire in 1888, the highest total at Lord's. In the

match between A. E. Stoddart's team and New South Wales at Sydney in

1898, 1739 runs were scored, an aggregate unparalleled in first-class

cricket. The highest total for an innings in a first-class match is

918 for N.S.W. v. South Australia in January 1901. Yorkshire scored

887 v. Warwickshire at Birmingham in May 1896. The lowest total in a

first-class match is 12 by Northamptonshire v. Gloucestershire in June

1907. The record for first wicket is 472 by S. Colman and P. Coles at

Eastbourne in 1892. The longest partnership on record is 623 by

Captain Oates and Fitzgerald at the Curragh in 1895. The best stand

that has been made for the last wicket in a first-class match is 230

runs, which was run up by R. W. Nicholls and Roche playing for

Middlesex v. Kent at Lord's in 1899.

The "averages" of individual players for batting and bowling annually

excite a good deal of interest, and there is a danger that some

players may think too much of their averages and too little of the

sporting side of the game. Any comparison of the highest averages

during a series of years would be misleading, owing to improvements in

grounds, difference of weather, and the variations in the number of

innings.

The following table of aggregates, compiled from the figures to the

end of 1905, affords a summary of the records of a select list of

historic cricketers; it will serve to supplement some details already

given above about them and others.

_Batting._

+--------------------+---------+--------+-------+-----+-------+

| | Innings.|Not Out.| Runs.|Most.| Aver. |

+--------------------+---------+--------+-------+-----+-------+

| K. S. Ranjitsinhji | 448 | 57 | 22,277| 285 | 56.3 |

| C. B. Fry | 481 | 29 | 22,865| 244 | 50.4 |

| T. Hayward | 667 | 61 | 25,225| 315 | 41.3 |

| J. T. Tyldesley | 491 | 38 | 18,683| 250 | 41.1 |

| Dr W. G. Grace | 1463 | 103 | 54,073| 344 | 39.1 |

| A. Shrewsbury | 784 | 88 | 25,819| 267 | 37.6 |

| R. Abel | 964 | 69 | 32,810| 357 | 36.5 |

| A. C. MacLaren | 526 | 37 | 17,364| 424 | 35.2 |

| G. H. Hirst | 626 | 92 | 18,615| 341 | 34.4 |

| Hon. F. S. Jackson | 490 | 35 | 15,498| 160 | 34.2 |

| W. Gunn | 821 | 66 | 25,286| 273 | 33.3 |

| W. W. Read | 739 | 53 | 22,919| 328 | 33.2 |

| A. E. Stoddart | 513 | 16 | 16,081| 221 | 32.2 |

+--------------------+---------+--------+-------+-----+-------+

_Bowling._

+----------------------+-------+--------+-------+-----+------+

| | Overs.| Maid. | Runs.|Wkts.| Aver.|

+----------------------+-------+--------+-------+-----+------+

| A. Shaw | 22,830| 12,803 | 21,887| 1916| 11.8 |

| F. R. Spofforth | 5,342| 2,168 | 8,773| 682| 12.5 |

| C. T. B. Turner | 5,388| 2,396 | 8,419| 649| 12.6 |

| T. Emmett | 14,672| 6,870 | 20,811| 1523| 13.1 |

| G. Lohmann | 15,196| 6,508 | 23,958| 1734| 13.1 |

| F. Morley | 12,610| 6,239 | 15,938| 1213| 13.1 |

| E. Peate | 11,669| 5,593 | 14,299| 1061| 13.5 |

| W. Rhodes | 11,014| 3,476 | 23,336| 1564| 14.1 |

| W. Attewell | 22,461| 11,408 | 28,671| 1874| 15.5 |

| J. Briggs | 20,300| 8,275 | 34,411| 2161| 15.2 |

| R. Peel | 18,255| 7,856 | 27,795| 1733| 16.6 |

| S. Haigh | 7,749| 2,279 | 18,516| 1102| 16.8 |

| J. T. Hearne | 19,895| 7,395 | 40,532| 2350| 17.5 |

| W. H. Lockwood | 8,733| 2,241 | 22,981| 1273| 18.6 |

| T. Richardson (1904) | 14,474| 3,835 | 38,126| 2081| 18.6 |

| Dr W. G. Grace (1904)| 28,502| 10,892 | 50,441| 2730| 18.1 |

| G. H. Hirst | 11,586| 3,525 | 27,028| 1377| 19.8 |

+----------------------+-------+--------+-------+-----+------+

BIBLIOGRAPHY.--The chief works on cricket are, apart from well-known

annuals:--H. Bentley's _Scores from 1786 to 1822_ (published in 1823);

John Nyren's _Young Cricketer's Tutor_ (1833); N. Wanostrocht's _Felix

on the Bat_ (various editions, 1845-1855); F. Lillywhite's _Cricket

Scores and Biographies, 1746 to 1840_ (1862); Rev. J. Pycroft's

_Cricket Field_ (various editions, 1862-1873); C. Box's _Theory and

Practice of Cricket_ (1868); F. Gale's _Echoes from Old Cricket

Fields_ (1871, new ed. 1896); _Marylebone Cricket Club Scores and

Biographies_ (1876), a continuation of Lillywhite's _Scores and

Biographies_; C. Box's _English Game of Cricket_ (1877); _History of a

Hundred Centuries_, by W. G. Grace (1895); _History of the Middlesex

County Cricket Club_, by W. J. Ford (1900); _History of the Cambridge

University Cricket Club_, by W. J. Ford (1902); _History of Yorkshire

County Cricket_, by R. S. Holmes (1904); _History of Kent County

Cricket_, ed. by Lord Harris, (1907); _Annals of Lord's_, by A. D.

Taylor (1903); _Curiosities of Cricket_, by F. S. Ashley Cooper

(1901); "Cricket," by Lord Hawke, in _English Sport_, by A. E. T.

Watson (1903); _Cricket_, edited by H. G. Hutchinson (1903); _Cricket

Form at a Glance_, by Home Gordon (1903); _Cricket_ (Badminton

Library), by A. G. Steel and Hon. R. H. Lyttleton (1904); _Old English

Cricketers_, by Old Ebor (1900); _Cricket in Many Climes_, by P. F.

Warner (1903); _How We Recovered the Ashes_, by P. F. Warner (1904);

_England v. Australia_, by J. N. Pentelow (records from 1877 to 1904)

(1904); _The Jubilee Book of Cricket_, by K. S. Ranjitsinhji (1897).

CRICKHOWELL, a market town of Brecknockshire, Wales, 14 m. E. of Brecon,

beautifully situated on the left bank of the Usk, which divides it from

Llangattock. Pop. (1901) 1150. The nearest railway stations are Govilon

(5 m.) and Gilwern (4 m.) on the London & North-Western railway, but a

mail and passenger motor service running between Abergavenny and Brecon

passes through the town. It is also served by the Brecon & Newport

Canal, which passes through Llangattock about a mile distant.

Agriculture is almost the sole industry of the district. The town

derives its name from a British fortress, Crug Hywel, commonly called

Table Mountain, about 2 m. N.N.E. of the town. Crickhowell Castle, of

which only a tower remains, probably dated from the Norman conquest of

the country. The manor of Crickhowell used to be regarded as a borough

by prescription, but there is no record of its ever having possessed any

municipal institutions. The church is in transitional Decorated style.

CRICKLADE, a market town in the Cricklade parliamentary division of

Wiltshire, England, 9 m. N.W. of Swindon, on the Midland & South-Western

Junction railway. Pop. (1901) 1517. It is pleasantly situated in the

plain which borders the south bank of the Thames, not far from the

Thames & Severn Canal. The cruciform church of St Sampson is mainly

Perpendicular, with a fine ornate tower, and an old rood-stone in its

churchyard. The small church of St Mary has an Early English tower,

Perpendicular aisles and a Norman chancel-arch. There is some

agricultural trade.

Legend makes Cricklade the abode of a school of Greek philosophers

before the Roman conquest, and the name is given as "Greeklade" in

Drayton's _Polyolbion_. It owed its importance in Saxon times to its

position at the passage of the Thames. During the revolt of AEthelwald

the AEtheling in 905 he and his army "harried all the Mercian's land

until they came to Cricklade and there they went over the Thames"

(Anglo-Sax. Chron. _sub anno_), and in 1016 Canute came with his army

over the Thames into Mercia at Cricklade (ibid.). There was a mint at

Cricklade in the time of Edward the Confessor and William I., and

William of Dover fortified a castle here in the reign of Stephen. In the

reign of Henry III. a hospital dedicated to St John the Baptist was

founded at Cricklade, and placed under the government of a warden or

prior. Cricklade was a borough by prescription at least as early as the

Domesday Survey, and returned two members to parliament from 1295 until

disfranchised by the Redistribution Act of 1885. The borough was never

incorporated, but certain liberties, including exemption from toll and

passage, were granted to the townsmen by Henry III. and confirmed by

successive sovereigns. In 1257 Baldwin de Insula obtained a grant of a

Thursday market, and an annual three days' fair at the feast of St Peter

ad Vincula. The market was subsequently changed to Saturday, and was

much frequented by dealers in corn and cattle, but is now

inconsiderable. During the 14th century Cricklade formed part of the

dowry of the queens of England. In the reign of Henry VI. the lordship

was acquired by the Hungerford family, and in 1427 Sir Walter Hungerford

granted the reversion of the manor to the dean and chapter of Salisbury

cathedral to aid towards the repair of their belfry.

CRIEFF, a police burgh of Perthshire, Scotland, capital of Strathearn,

17-3/4 m. W. of Perth by the Caledonian railway. Pop. (1901) 5208.

Occupying the southern slopes of a hill on the left bank of the Earn,

here crossed by a bridge, it practically consists of a main street, with

narrower streets branching off at right angles. Its climate is the

healthiest in mid-Scotland, the air being pure and dry. Its charter is

said to date from 1218, and it was the seat of the courts of the earls

of Strathearn till 1747, when heritable jurisdictions were abolished. A

Runic sculptured stone, believed to be of the 8th century, and the old

town cross stand in High Street, but the great cattle fair, for which

Crieff was once famous, was removed to Falkirk in 1770. It was probably

in connexion with this market that the "kind gallows of Crieff" acquired

their notoriety, for they were mostly used for the execution of Highland

cattle-stealers. The principal buildings are the town hall, tolbooth,

public library, assembly rooms, mechanics' institute, Morison's academy

(founded in 1859), and Strathearn House, a hydropathic establishment

built on an eminence at the back of the town, and itself sheltered by

the Knock of Crieff (911 ft. high). The industries consist of

manufactures of cotton, linen, woollens and worsteds, and leather.

Drummond Castle, about 3 m. S., is celebrated for its gardens. They

cover an area of 10 acres, are laid out in terraces, and illustrate

Italian, Dutch and French styles. They were planned by the 2nd earl of

Perth (d. 1662), and take rank with the most magnificent in the United

Kingdom. The keep of the castle dates from 1490, and much of the

original building was demolished in 1689, a few years after its siege by

Cromwell. The present structure was erected subsequent to the extinction

of the Jacobite rebellion.

CRIME (Lat. _crimen_, accusation), the general term for offences against

the Criminal Law (q.v.). Crime has been defined as "a failure or refusal

to live up to the standard of conduct deemed binding by the rest of the

community." Sir James Stephen describes it as "some act or omission in

respect of which legal punishment may be inflicted on the person who is

in default whether by acting or omitting to act." Such action or neglect

of action may be injurious or hurtful to society. It is a wrong or tort,

to be prevented and corrected by the strong arm of the law.

Crimes vary in character with times and countries. Under different

circumstances of place and custom, that which at one time is denounced

as a crime, at another passes as a meritorious act. It was once an

imperative duty for the family to avenge the death of a kinsman, and the

blood feud had a sanction that made killing no murder. Again, among

primitive tribes to make away with parents at an advanced age or

suffering from an incurable disease was a filial duty. Polyandry was

sometimes encouraged, and cannibalism practised with general approval;

religious sentiment elevated into heinous crimes, blasphemy, heresy,

sacrilege, sorcery and even science when it ran counter to accepted

dogmas of the church. Offences multiplied when people gathered into

communities and the rights of property and of personal security were

understood and established. The law of the strongest might still

interfere with individual ownership; the weakest went to the wall;

authority, whether exercised by one master or by the combined government

of the many, was resisted, and this resistance constituted crime. As

civilization spread and the bulk of the population settled into

orderliness, society, for its own comfort, convenience and protection,

would not tolerate the infraction of its rules, and rising against all

law-breakers decreed reprisals against them as the common enemy. Then

began that constant warfare between criminals and the forces of law and

order which has been continuously waged through the centuries with

varying degrees of bitterness.

The combat with crime was long waged with great cruelty. Extreme

penalties were thought to constitute the best deterrent, and the

principle of vengeance chiefly inspired the penal law. The harshness of

ancient codes makes a more humane age shudder. It was the custom to hang

or decapitate, or otherwise take life in some more or less barbarous

fashion, on the smallest excuse. The final act was preceded by hideous

torture. It was performed with the utmost barbarity. Victims were put to

death by breaking on the wheel, burning at the stake, by dismemberment

and flaying or boiling alive. These were the aggravations of the

original idea of riddance, of checking crime by the absolute removal of

the offender. Only slowly and gradually milder methods came into force.

Revenge and retaliation were no longer the chief aims, the law had a

larger mission than to coerce the criminal and force him by severity to

mend his ways. To withdraw him for a lengthened period from the sphere

of his baneful activity was something; to subject him to more or less

irksome processes, to solitary confinement upon short diet, deprived of

all the solaces of life, with severe labour, were sharp lessons limited

in effect to those actually subjected to them, but too remote to deter

the outside crowd of potential wrongdoers. The higher duty of the

administrator is to utilize the period of detention by labouring to

reform the criminal subjects and send them out from gaol reformed

characters. If no very remarkable success has been achieved in this

direction, it is obviously the right aim, and it is being more and more

steadfastly pursued. But it is generally accepted in principle that to

eradicate criminal proclivities and cut off recruits from the permanent

army of crime the work must be undertaken when the subject is of an age

susceptible of reform; hence the extreme value attaching to the more

enlightened treatment of crime in embryo, a principle becoming more and

more largely accepted in practice among civilized nations.

It may safely be asserted that the germ of crime is universally present

in mankind, ever ready to show under conditions favourable to its

growth. Children show criminal tendencies in their earliest years. They

exhibit evil traits, anger, resentment, mendacity; they are often

intensely selfish, are strongly acquisitive, greedy of gain, ready to

steal and secrete things at the first opportunity. Happily the fatal

consequences that would otherwise be inevitable are checked by the

gradual growth of inhibitory processes, such as prudence, reflection, a

sense of moral duty, and in many cases the absence of temptation. From

this Dr Nicholson deduces that "in proportion as this development is

prevented or stifled, either owing to an original brain defect or by

lack of proper education or training, so there is the risk of the

individual lapsing into criminal-mindedness or into actual crime." In

the lowest strata of society this risk is largely increased from the

conditions of life. The growth of criminals is greatly stimulated where

people are badly fed, morally and physically unhealthy, infected with

any forms of disease and vice. In such circumstances, moreover, there is

too often the evil influence of heredity and example. The offspring of

criminals are constantly impelled to follow in their parents' footsteps

by the secret springs of nature and pressure of childish imitativeness.

The seed is thrown, so to speak, into a hot-bed where it finds congenial

soil in which to take root and flourish.

Wherever crime shows itself it follows certain well-defined lines and

has its genesis in three dominant mental processes, the result of marked

propensities. These are malice, acquisitiveness and lust. Malicious

crimes may be amplified into offences against the person originating in

hatred, resentment, violent temper, and rising from mere assaults into

manslaughter and murder. Crimes of greed and acquisitiveness cover the

whole range of thefts, frauds and misappropriation; of larcenies of all

sorts; obtaining by false pretences; receiving stolen goods; robberies;

house-breaking, burglary, forgery and coining. Crimes of lust embrace

the whole range of illicit sexual relations, the result of ungovernable

passion and criminal depravity. The proportions in which these three

categories are manifested have been worked out in England and Wales to

give the following figures. The percentage in any 100,000 of the

population is:--

Crimes of malice 15%

Crimes of greed 75%

Crimes of lust 10%

The members of these categories do not form distinct classes; their

crimes are interdependent and constantly overlap. Crime in many is

progressive and passes through all the stages from minor offences to the

worst crimes. Murder--the culminating point of malice--is constantly

preceded by petty larceny; theft by forcible entry; and robbery is

associated with violence and armed resistance to capture. Criminality

rising into its highest development shows itself under many forms. It is

instinctive, passionate, accidental, deliberate and habitual, the

outcome of abnormal appetite, of weak and disordered moral sense. The

causation of crime varies, but a predominating motive is idleness,

leading to the predatory instincts of gain easily acquired without the

labour of continuous effort. To deprive the more industrious or more

happily placed of their hard-won earnings or possessions, inspires the

bulk of modern serious crime. It no doubt has produced one peculiar

feature in modern crime: the extensive scale on which it is carried out.

The greatest frauds are now commonly perpetrated; great robberies are

planned in one capital and executed in another. The whole is worked by

wide associations of cosmopolitan criminals.

Other features of modern crime are especially interesting. It is

extraordinarily precocious. Children of quite tender years commit

murders, and boys and girls are frequently to be met with as

professional thieves. Again, the comparative proportions of crime in the

two sexes may be considered. Everywhere women are less criminal than

men. Naturally they have fewer facilities for committing crimes of

violence, although they have offences peculiar to their sex, such as

infanticide, and are more frequently guilty of poisoning than men by 70%

against 30%. Statistics presented to the Prison Congress at Stockholm

fix the percentage of female criminals at 3% in Japan, the East

generally, South America and some parts of North America. In some states

of the American Union it is 10%; in China, 20%; in Europe generally it

varies between 10% and 21%. In France the proportion of accused women is

fifteen to eighty-five men. In Great Britain it is now one in four, but

has been less. The total sentenced in 1905-1906 to penal servitude and

imprisonment was 139,389 men and 44,294 women, the balance being made up

by summary convictions. The curious fact in female crime is that

one-seventh of the women committed to prison had already been convicted

from eleven to twenty times. It has been well said from the above

proportions that women are less criminal according to the figures,

because when a woman wants a crime committed she can generally find a

man to do it for her.

It has often been debated whether or not prison methods react upon the

criminality of the country; whether, in other words, severity of

treatment _deters_, while milder methods encourage the wrongdoers to

despise the penalties imposed by the law. Evidence for and against the

verdict may be drawn from the whole civilized world. In England, as

judged by the increase or decrease of the prison population, it might be

supposed that the prison system was at one time effective in diminishing

crime. Between 1878 and 1891 there was a steady decrease in numbers

because of it. More recently there has been an appreciable increase in

the number of crimes and proportionately of those imprisoned. The

figures for 1906 showed a distinct increase in criminality for that year

as compared with the years immediately preceding. The proportion of

indictable offences had increased in 1906 from 59,079 as against 50,494

in 1899, or in the proportion of 171.01 per 100,000 of the population as

against 158.97, a very marked increase over earlier years. Nevertheless

the figures for 1906, although high, are by no means the highest, as on

eight occasions during the fifty odd years for which statistics were

available in 1909 the total crimes exceeded 60,000, and in the

quinquennial period 1860-1864 the annual average was 280 per 100,000 as

compared with 171.01 for 1906 and 175 for the quinquennial period

1902-1906. The quality of the crime varied, and while offences against

property have increased, those against the person have constantly

fallen. Quite half the whole number of crimes were committed by old

offenders (see RECIDIVISM).

Statistics have not been kept with the same care in all other countries,

but some authentic figures may be quoted for France, where the number of

thefts increased while offences against the person diminished. In

Belgium there has been a satisfactory decrease in recent years. In

Prussia the prison population has on the whole increased, but there has

been a slight diminution in more serious crime. Some very noticeable

figures are forthcoming from the United States, and comparison is

possible of the relative amount of crime in the two countries, America

and England. Here the want of statistics covering a large period is much

to be regretted. On the general question serious crime in the ten years

between 1880 and 1890 slightly increased, while petty crime was very

considerably less during the period. Charges for homicide have been much

more numerous. There were in 1880, 4608, or a ratio of 9.1 to 100,000 of

the population; but in 1890 these offences rose to 7351, or a ratio of

11.7. Comparing America with England, it has been calculated in round

numbers that the proportion of prisoners to the general population was

in the United States as 1 to every 759, and in England 1 to every 1764

persons. As regards the more serious crimes the number in English

convict prisons was as 1 to 10,000, and in the American state prisons

(the corresponding institutions) the ratio was 1 to every 1358. In the

lesser prisons, i.e. the English local prisons and the American city or

county gaols, the numbers more nearly approximate, being in England 1 to

2143 and in America 1 to 1721. It has been argued that much of the crime

in America is attributable to the preponderance of foreign immigrants,

but the ratio of native born prisoners is that of 1237 to the million,

of foreign born prisoners 1777 to the million.

AUTHORITIES.--A. MacDonald, _Criminology_ (New York, 1893); A. Drahms,

_The Criminal_ (New York, 1900); E. Ferri, _La Sociologie criminelle_,

trans. Ferrier (Paris, 1905); all these contain extensive

bibliographies. See also under CRIMINOLOGY. (A. G.)

CRIMEA (ancient _Tauris_ or Tauric Chersonese, called by the Russians by

the Tatar name _Krym_ or _Crim_), a peninsula on the north side of the

Black Sea, forming part of the Russian government of Taurida, with the

mainland of which it is connected by the Isthmus of Perekop (3-4 m.

across). It is rudely rhomboid in shape, the angles being directed

towards the cardinal points, and measures 200 m. between 44 deg. 23' and

46 deg. 10' N., and 110 m. between 32 deg. 30' and 36 deg. 40' E. Its

area is 9700 sq. m.

Its coasts are washed by the Black Sea, except on the north-east, where

is the Sivash or Putrid Sea, a shallow lagoon separated from the Sea of

Azov by the Arabat spit of sand. The shores are broken by several bays

and harbours--on the west side of the Isthmus of Perekop by the Bay of

Karkinit; on the south-west by the open Bay of Kalamita, on the shores

of which the allies landed in 1854, with the ports of Eupatoria,

Sevastopol and Balaklava; by the Bay of Arabat on the north side of the

Isthmus of Yenikale or Kerch; and by the Bay of Kaffa or Feodosiya

(Theodosia), with the port of that name, on the south side of the same.

The south-east coast is flanked at a distance of 5 to 8 m. from the sea

by a parallel range of mountains, the Yaila-dagh, or Alpine Meadow

mountains, and these are backed, inland, by secondary parallel ranges;

but 75% of the remaining area consists of high arid prairie lands, a

southward continuation of the Pontic steppes, which slope gently

north-westwards from the foot of the Yaila-dagh. The main range of these

mountains shoots up with extraordinary abruptness from the deep floor of

the Black Sea to an altitude of 2000 to 2500 ft., beginning at the

south-west extremity of the peninsula, Cape Fiolente (anc.

_Parthenium_), supposed to have been crowned by the temple of Artemis in

which Iphigeneia officiated as priestess. On the higher parts of this

range are numerous flat mountain pastures (Turk, _yailas_), which,

except for their scantier vegetation, are analogous to the _almen_ of

the Swiss Alps, and are crossed by various passes (_bogaz_), of which

only six are available as carriage roads. The most conspicuous summits

in this range are the Demir-kapu or Kemal-egherek (5040 ft.), Roman-kosh

(5060 ft.), Chatyr-dagh (5000 ft.), and Karabi-yaila (3975 ft.). The

second parallel range, which reaches altitudes of 1500 to 1900 ft.,

likewise presents steep crags to the south-east and a gentle slope

towards the north-west. In the former slope are thousands of small

caverns, probably inhabited in prehistoric times; and several rivers

pierce the range in picturesque gorges. A valley, 10 to 12 m. wide,

separates this range from the main range, while another valley 2 to 3 m.

across separates it from the third parallel range, which reaches

altitudes of only 500 to 850 ft. Evidences of a fourth and still lower

ridge can be traced towards the south-west.

A number of short streams, none of them anywhere navigable, leap down

the flanks of the mountains by cascades in spring, e.g. the Chernaya,

Belbek, Kacha and Alma, to the Black Sea, and the Salghir, with its

affluent, the Kara-su, to the Sivash lagoon.

In point of climate and vegetation there exist marked differences

between the open steppes and the south-eastern littoral, with the slopes

of the Yaila-dagh behind it. The former, although grasses and Liliaceae

grow on them in great variety and luxuriance in the early spring, become

completely parched up by July and August, while the air is then filled

with clouds of dust. There also high winds prevail, and snowstorms,

hailstorms and frost are of common occurrence. Nevertheless this region

produces wheat and barley, rye and oats, and supports numbers of cattle,

sheep and horses. Parts of the steppes are, however, impregnated with

salt, or studded with saline lakes; there nothing grows except the usual

species of _Artemisia_ and _Salsola_. As a rule water can only be

obtained from wells sunk 200 to 300 ft. deep, and artesian wells are now

being bored in considerable numbers. All over the steppes are scattered

numerous _kurgans_ or burial-mounds of the ancient Scythians. The

picture which lies behind the sheltering screen of the Yaila-dagh is of

an altogether different character. Here the narrow strip of coast and

the slopes of the mountains are smothered with greenery. This Russian

Riviera stretches all along the south-east coast from Cape Sarych

(extreme S.) to Feodosiya (Theodosia), and is studded with summer

sea-bathing resorts--Alupka, Yalta, Gursuv, Alushta, Sudak, Theodosia.

Numerous Tatar villages, mosques, monasteries, palaces of the Russian

imperial family and Russian nobles, and picturesque ruins of ancient

Greek and medieval fortresses and other buildings cling to the

acclivities and nestle amongst the underwoods of hazel and other nuts,

the groves of bays, cypresses, mulberries, figs, olives and

pomegranates, amongst the vineyards, the tobacco plantations, and

gardens gay with all sorts of flowers; while the higher slopes of the

mountains are thickly clothed with forests of oak, beech, elm, pines,

firs and other Coniferae. Here have become acclimatized, and grow in the

open air, such plants as magnolias, oleanders, tulip trees, bignonias,

myrtles, camellias, mimosas and many tender fruit-trees. Vineyards cover

over 19,000 acres, and the wine they yield (3-1/2 million gallons

annually) enjoys a high reputation. Fruits of all kinds are produced in

abundance. In some winters the tops of the mountains are covered with

snow, but snow seldom falls to the south of them, and ice, too, is

rarely seen in the same districts. The heat of summer is moderated by

breezes off the sea, and the nights are cool and serene; the winters are

mild and healthy. Fever and ague prevail in the lower-lying districts

for a few weeks in autumn. Dense fogs occur sometimes in March, April

and May, but seldom penetrate inland. The difference of climate between

the different parts of the Crimea is illustrated by the following data:

annual mean, at Melitopol, on the steppe N. of Perekop, 48 deg. Fahr.;

at Simferopol, just within the mountains, 50 deg.; at Yalta, on the

south-east coast, 56.5 deg.; the respective January means being 20 deg.,

31 deg. and 39.5 deg., and the July means 74 deg., 70 deg. and 75.5

deg.. The rainfall is small all over the peninsula, the annual average

on the steppes being 13.8 in., at Simferopol 17.5, and at Yalta 18 in.

It varies greatly, however, from year to year; thus at Simferopol it

ranges between the extremes of 7.5 and 26.4 in.

Other products of the Crimea, besides those already mentioned, are salt,

porphyry and limestone, and ironstone has recently been brought to light

at Kerch. Fish abound all round the coast, such as red and grey mullet,

herring, mackerel, turbot, soles, plaice, whiting, bream, haddock,

pilchard, a species of pike, whitebait, eels, salmon and sturgeon.

Manufacturing industries are represented by shipbuilding, flour-mills,

ironworks, jam and pickle factories, soap-works and tanneries. The

Tatars excel in a great variety of domestic industries, especially in

the working of leather, wool and metal. A railway, coming from Kharkov,

crosses the peninsula from north to south, terminating at Sevastopol and

sending off branch lines to Theodosia and Kerch.

The bulk of the population consist of Tatars, who, however, are racially

modified by intermarriage with Greeks and other ethnic elements. The

remainder of the population is made up of Russians, Germans, Karaite

Jews, Greeks and a few Albanians. The total in 1897 was 853,900, of whom

only 150,000 lived in the towns. Simferopol is the chief town; others of

note, in addition to those already named, are Eupatoria and

Bakhchisarai, the old Tatar capital.

_History._--The earliest inhabitants of whom we have any authentic

traces were the Celtic Cimmerians, who were expelled by the Scythians

during the 7th century B.C. A remnant, who took refuge in the mountains,

became known subsequently as the Tauri. In that same century Greek

colonists began to settle on the coasts, e.g. Dorians from Heraclea at

Chersonesus, and Ionians from Miletus at Theodosia and Panticapaeum

(also called Bosporus). Two centuries later (438 B.C.) the archon or

ruler of the last-named assumed the title of king of Bosporus, a state

which maintained close relations with Athens, supplying that city with

wheat and other commodities. The last of these kings, Paerisades V.,

being hard pressed by the Scythians, put himself under the protection of

Mithradates VI., king of Pontus, in 114 B.C. After the death of this

latter sovereign his son Pharnaces, as a reward for assistance rendered

to the Romans in their war against his father, was (63 B.C.) invested by

Pompey with the kingdom of Bosporus. In 15 B.C. it was once more

restored to the king of Pontus, but henceforward ranked as a tributary

state of Rome. During the succeeding centuries the Crimea was overrun or

occupied successively by the Goths (A.D. 250), the Huns (376), the

Khazars (8th century), the Byzantine Greeks (1016), the Kipchaks (1050),

and the Mongols (1237). In the 13th century the Genoese destroyed or

seized the settlements which their rivals the Venetians had made on the

Crimean coasts, and established themselves at Eupatoria, Cembalo

(Balaklava), Soldaia (Sudak), and Kaffa (Theodosia), flourishing trading

towns, which existed down to the conquest of the peninsula by the

Ottoman Turks in 1475. Meanwhile the Tatars had got a firm footing in

the northern and central parts of the peninsula as early as the 13th

century, and after the destruction of the Golden Horde by Tamerlane they

founded an independent khanate under a descendant of Jenghiz Khan, who

is known as Hadji Ghirai. He and his successors reigned first at Solkhat

(Eski-krym), and from the beginning of the 15th century at

Bakhchi-sarai. But from 1478 they ruled as tributary princes of the

Ottoman empire down to 1777, when having been defeated by Suvarov they

became dependent upon Russia, and finally in 1783 the whole of the

Crimea was annexed to the Russian empire. Since that date the only

important phase of its history has been the Crimean War of 1854-56,

which is treated of under a separate article. At various times, e.g.

after the acquisition by Russia, after the Crimean War of 1854-56, and

in the first years of the 20th century, the Tatars emigrated in large

numbers to the Ottoman empire.

See _Antiquites du Bosphore cimmerien_ (3 vols., St Petersburg, 1854);

C. Bossoll, _The Beautiful Scenery of the Crimea_ (52 large drawings,

London, 1855-1856); P. Brunn, _Notices hist. et topogr. concernant les

colonies italiennes en Gazarie_ (St Petersburg, 1866); J. B. Telfer,

_The Crimea and Transcaucasia_ (2 vols., London, 2nd ed., 1877); F.

Remy, _Die Krim in ethnographischer, landschaftlicher und hygienischer

Beziehung_ (Leipzig, 1872); Joseph, Baron von Hammer-Purgstall,

_Geschichte der Chane der Krim unter osmanischer Herrschaft_ (Vienna,

1856); M. G. Canale, _Della Crimea e dei suoi dominatori dalle sue

origini fino al trattato di Parigi_ (3 vols., Genoa, 1855-1856); and

Sir Evelyn Wood, _The Crimea in 1854 and 1894_ (London, 1895). (See

also BOSPORUS CIMMERIUS.) (P. A. K.; J. T. BE.)

CRIMEAN WAR. The war of 1853-56, usually known by this name, arose from

causes the discussion of which will be found under the heading TURKEY:

History. When Turkey, after a period of irregular fighting, declared war

on Russia in October 1853, Great Britain and France (subsequently

assisted by Sardinia) intervened in the quarrel. At first this

intervention was represented merely by the presence of an allied

squadron in the Bosporus, but the storm of indignation aroused in Great

Britain and France by the destruction of the Turkish fleet at Sinope

(30th November) soon impelled these powers to more active measures. On

the 27th of January 1854 they declared war on the tsar, and prepared to

carry their armaments to the Danube. In this, the main, theatre of war,

the Turks had hitherto proved quite capable of holding their own. The

Russian commander, Prince Michael Gorchakov, had crossed the Pruth with

two corps early in July 1853, and had overrun Moldavia and Wallachia

without difficulty. Omar Pasha, however, disposing of superior forces,

was able to check any further advance. During October, November and

December the Turks won a succession of actions, of which that at

Oltenitza (Nov. 4th) may be particularly mentioned, and a little later

Gorchakov found himself compelled to fight at Cetatea (Tchetati) before

reinforcements could come up. The defeat he sustained was for the time

being decisive (6th Jan. 1854). Three months later, the Russians, now

under command of the veteran Prince Paskievich, took the offensive in

great force. Crossing the Danube near its mouth at Galatz and Braila,

they advanced through the Dobrudja and closed upon the fortress of

Silistria, which offered a strong and steady resistance, with an effect

all the greater as the Turks from the side of Shumla, now supported by

the leading British and French brigades at Varna, prevented a close

investment. The Turks, however, avoided a decisive encounter, and the

stormers stood ready in the trenches before Silistria, when the siege

was suddenly raised. The decision had passed into other hands. The tsar

had learned that the Austrian army of observation in Transylvania,

50,000 strong under Feldzeugmeister Hess, was about to enforce the

wishes of the "Four Powers." The Russian offensive was at an end, the

army hastily fell back, and on the 2nd of August 1854 the last man

recrossed the Pruth. The principalities were at once occupied by Hess.

[Illustration: Seat of Crimean War]

_The Invasion of the Crimea._--The primary object of the war had thus

easily been obtained. But Great Britain and France were by no means

content with a triumph that left untouched the vast resources of an

enemy who was certain to employ them at the next opportunity. The two

nations felt that Sevastopol, the home of the Black Sea fleet, the port

whence Admiral Nachimov had sailed for Sinope, must be crippled for some

years at least, and as early as June 29th Lord Raglan and Marshal Saint

Arnaud, the allied commanders of England and France, had received

instructions to "concert measures for the siege of Sevastopol." Dynastic

considerations reinforced the arguments of policy and popular opinion in

the case of France; in Great Britain soldier and civilian alike saw the

menace of a Russian Mediterranean fleet in the unfinished forts and busy

dockyards. The popular strategy for once coincided with the views of the

responsible leaders. Yet there is no sign that either the commanders on

the spot or their governments realized the magnitude of the undertaking.

Few but the most urgently necessary preparations were made, and cholera,

breaking out virulently amongst the French at this time, reduced the

army at Varna, and even the fleet at sea, to impotence. The troops were

so weakened that, even in September, the five-mile march from camp to

transport exhausted most of the men. Heavy weather still further delayed

the start, and it was not until the 7th of September that the expedition

began to cross the Black Sea. One hundred and fifty war-vessels and

transports conveyed the army, which, guarded on all sides by the

fighting fleet, crossed without incident and drew up on the Crimean

coast on September 13th. Tactical considerations prevailed in the choice

of place. The landlocked harbours south of Sevastopol were for the time

being neglected, and a spot known as Old Fort preferred, because the

long beach, the heavy metal of the ships' broadsides, and a line of

lagoons covering the front offered singularly favourable conditions for

the delicate operation of disembarkation. Still, on this side of

Sevastopol there was no good harbour, and it is quite open to question

whether in this case the strategic necessities of the situation were not

neglected in favour of purely tactical and temporary advantages. As a

matter of fact no opposition was offered to the landing, but the weather

prevented the disembarkation being completed until the 18th. St Arnaud

and Raglan had at this time under their orders 51,000 British, French

and Turkish infantry, 1000 British cavalry, and 128 guns, and on the

19th this force (less some detachments) began the southward march in

order of battle, the British (who alone had their cavalry present) on

the exposed left flank, the French next the sea, the fleet moving in the

same direction parallel to the troops.

_The Alma._--Old Fort was beyond the reach of Menshikov, the Russian

commander, but, as the fortress communicated with the interior of Russia

via Kerch and Simferopol, it was to be expected that he would either

accept battle on the Sevastopol road, or cover Simferopol by a flank

attack on Lord Raglan. Both these contingencies were provided for by the

order of march, and in due course it was ascertained that the Russians

adopted the former alternative, and barred the Sevastopol road on the

heights of the river Alma. Menaced by the guns of the fleet, Menshikov

had wheeled back his left, and at the same time he strengthened his

right in order to cover the Simferopol road. From this it followed

naturally that the brunt of the attack fell upon the British divisions,

whilst the French, nearer the sea, struck to some extent _dans le vide_.

The two commanders, after a reconnaissance, decided upon their plan. The

French divisions in echelon from the right were to cross the river and

force Menshikov inwards, whilst the British were to move straight to

their front against the strongest part of the Russian line.

Substantially this plan was carried out on the 20th of September. Owing

to want of men (he had but 36,400 against over 50,000) Menshikov was

unable to hold his left wing very strongly, and the French were scarcely

checked save by physical obstacles; but opposite the British force the

ground sloped glacis-wise up to the Russian line, and nothing but their

iron discipline, the best heritage of the Peninsular War, brought them

victorious to the crest of Kurghane hill. The Russians had no option but

to retreat, which they did without molestation. The allies lost about

3000 men, mostly British (though Prince Napoleon's men also suffered

heavily); the Russians reported 5709 casualties.

_The March on Sevastopol._--On the 23rd of September the advance was

resumed, and by the 25th Sevastopol was in full view of the allied

outposts. It was now that the necessary consequences of the choice of

Old Fort as the landing-place presented themselves as a problem for

instant solution. Whatever chance there had been of assaulting the north

side of Sevastopol was now gone. Menshikov had sacrificed some ships in

order to seal up the harbour mouth, and naval co-operation in attack was

now impossible, while the other Russian ships could in safety aid the

defenders with their heavy guns. A siege, based on the beach of Old Fort

or the open roads of Kacha, was out of the question, as was

re-embarkation for a fresh landing. There remained only a flank march by

Mackenzie's farm and the river Chernaya. Once established on the south

side, the allies could use the excellent harbours of Kamiesh and

Balaklava; this could almost certainly be effected without fighting,

while in besieging Sevastopol itself and not merely the north side, the

allies would be striking at the heart. But a flank march is almost

always in itself a hazardous undertaking, and in this case the invaders

were required further to abandon their line of retreat on Old Fort. In

point of fact, the army, covered by a division opposite the Russian

works, successfully accomplished the task. At the same moment Menshikov,

after providing for the defence of Sevastopol, had marched out with a

field army towards Bakhchiserai, and on the 25th of September each army,

without knowing it, actually crossed the other's front. On arrival at

Balaklava the allies regained contact with the fleet, and the detachment

left on the north side, its mission being at an end, followed the same

route and rejoined the main body. The French now took possession of

Kamiesh, the British of Balaklava.

[Illustration: SEVASTOPOL 1854-1856]

_Beginning of the Siege._--Thus secured, the allies closed upon the

south side of the fortress. A siege corps was formed, and the British

army and General Bosquet's French corps covered its operations against

interruption from the Russian field army. The harbour of Sevastopol,

formed by the estuary of the Chernaya, was protected against attack by

sea not only by the Russian war-vessels, afloat and sunken, but also by

heavy granite forts on the south side and by the works which had defied

the allies on the north. For the town itself and the Karabelnaya suburb

the trace of the works had been laid down for years. The Malakoff, a

great tower of stone, covered the suburb, flanked on either side by the

Redan and the Little Redan. The town was covered by a line of works

marked by the Flagstaff and central bastions, and separated from the

Redan by the inner harbour. Lieut.-Col. Todleben, the Russian chief

engineer, had very early begun work on these sites, and daily

re-creating, rearming and improving the fortifications, finally

connected them by a continuous enceinte. Yet Sevastopol was not, early

in October 1854, the towering fortress it afterwards became, and

Todleben himself maintained that, had the allies immediately assaulted,

they would have succeeded in taking the place. There were, however, many

reasons against so decided a course, and it was not until the 17th of

October that the first attack took place. All that day a tremendous

artillery duel raged. The French siege corps lost heavily and its guns

were overpowered. The fleet engaged the harbour batteries close inshore,

and suffered a loss of 500 men, besides severe damage to the ships. On

the other hand the British siege batteries silenced the Malakoff and its

annexes, and, if failure had not occurred at the other points of attack,

an assault might have succeeded. As it was, Todleben, by daybreak, had

repaired and improved the damaged works. Meanwhile General Canrobert had

succeeded St Arnaud (who died on the 29th of September) in the joint

leadership of the allies. It was not long before Menshikov and the now

augmented field army from Bakhchiserai appeared on the Chernaya and

moved towards the Balaklava lines and the British base.

_Balaklava._--A long line of works on the upland secured the siege corps

from interference, and the Balaklava lines themselves were strong, but

the low Vorontsov ridge between the two was weakly held, and here the

Russian commander hoped to sever the line of communications. On the 25th

of October Liprandi's corps carried its slight redoubts at the first

rush. But the British cavalry stationed at the foot of the upland was

situated on their flank, and as the Russian cavalry moved towards

Kadikoi, the "Heavy Brigade" under General Scarlett charged home with

such effect that Menshikov's troopers only rallied behind their field

batteries near Traktir bridge. At the same time some of the Russian

squadrons, coming upon the British 93rd regiment outside the Balaklava

lines, were completely broken by the steady volleys of the "thin red

line." The "Light Brigade" of British cavalry, farther north, had

hitherto remained inactive, even when the Russians, broken by the

"Heavies," fled across their front. The cavalry commander, Lord Lucan,

now received orders to prevent the withdrawal of the guns taken by

Liprandi. The aide-de-camp who carried the order was killed by the first

shell, and the whole question of responsibility for what followed is

wrapped in obscurity. Lord Cardigan led the Light Brigade straight at

the Russian field batteries, behind which the enemy's squadrons had

re-formed. From the guns in front, on the Fedukhin heights, and on the

captured ridge to their right, the advancing squadrons at once met a

deadly converging fire, but the gallant troopers nevertheless reached

the guns and cut down the artillerymen. Small parties even charged the

cavalry behind, and at least two unbroken squadrons struck out right and

left with success, but the combat could only end in one way. The 4th

Chasseurs d'Afrique relieved the British left by a dashing charge. The

"Heavies" made as if to advance, but came under such a storm of fire

that they were withdrawn. By twos and threes the gallant survivors of

the "Light Brigade" made their way back. Two-thirds of its numbers were

left on the field, and the day closed with the Russians still in

possession of the Vorontsov ridge.

_Inkerman._--If the heights lost in this action were not absolutely

essential to the safety of the allies, the point selected for the next

attempt at relief was of vital importance. The junction of the covering

army and the siege corps near Inkerman was the scene of a slight action

on the day following Balaklava, and the battle of Inkerman followed on

the 5th of November. By that time the French had made good the losses of

the 17th of October, their approaches were closing upon Flagstaff

bastion, and the British batteries daily maintained their superiority

over the Malakoff. On the 5th there was to have been a meeting of

generals to fix the details of an assault, but at dawn the Russian army,

now heavily reinforced from Odessa, was attacking with the utmost fury

the British divisions guarding the angle between Bosquet and the siege

corps. The battle of Inkerman defies description; every regiment, every

group of men bore its own separate part in the confused and doubtful

struggle, save when leaders on either side obtained a momentary control

over its course by means of reserves which, carrying all before them

with their original impetus, soon served but to swell the melee. It was

a "soldiers' battle" pure and simple. After many hours of the most

desperate fighting the arrival of Bosquet (hitherto contained by a force

on the Balaklava ground) confirmed a success won by supreme tenacity

against overwhelming odds, and Menshikov sullenly drew off his men,

leaving over 12,000 on the field. The allies had lost about 3300 men, of

whom more than two-thirds belonged to the small British force on which

the strain of the battle fell heaviest. Their losses included several

generals who could ill be spared, but they had held their ground, which

was all that was required of them, with almost unrivalled tenacity. Lord

Raglan was promoted to be field marshal after the battle.

_The Winter of 1854-1855._--It was now obvious that the army must

winter in the Crimea, and preparations in view of this were begun

betimes. But on the night of November 14th a violent storm arose which

wrecked nearly thirty vessels with their precious cargoes of treasure,

medical comforts, forage, clothing and other necessaries. After so grave

a calamity it was to be expected that the troops would be called upon to

undergo great hardships. But the direct cause of sufferings that have

become a byword for the utmost depths of misery was the loss of twenty

days' forage in the great storm. Of food and clothing enough was in

store to tide over temporary difficulties, but the only paved road from

Balaklava to the British camps was now in Russian hands, and the few

starving transport animals were utterly inadequate for the work of

drawing wagons over the miry plain; things went from bad to worse with

Raglan's troops, until from the outposts before the Redan to the

hospitals at Scutari a state of the utmost misery prevailed, relieved

only by the example of devotion and self-sacrifice set by officers and

men. The British hospital returns showed eight thousand sick at the end

of November. Even the French, whose base of Kamiesh had escaped the

storm, were not unhurt by the severity of the winter, but Napoleon III.

sent freely all the men his general asked, while the Russians in

Sevastopol, who had made long painful marches from the interior, were

the survivors of the fittest. Canrobert took over the lines before the

Malakoff to relieve the British. He had at the end of January 1855

78,000 men for duty; Raglan could barely muster 12,000. But, with the

advent of spring, paved roads and a railway were promptly taken in hand,

and during the remainder of the war the British troops were so well

cared for that their death-rate was lower than at home, while the

hospitals in rear, thanks to the energy and devotion of Florence

Nightingale and her nurses, became models of good management.

_Course of the Siege._--Meanwhile the siege works were making but slow

progress, and the fortress grew day by day under the skilful direction

of Todleben. Rifle-pits pushed out in front of the defenders' lines were

connected so as to form a veritable envelope. Beyond the left wing a new

line, the "White Works," sprang up in a single night, and the hill of

the Mamelon was suddenly crowned with a lunette to cover the still

defiant Malakoff. But the absence of bomb-proof cover exposed the huge

working parties necessary for these defences to an almost incessant _feu

d'enfer_, by which the Russians every week suffered the losses of a

pitched battle. Meanwhile the field army was idle, Menshikov had been

replaced by Prince Michael Gorchakov, Liprandi's corps had withdrawn

from the Vorontsov ridge, and Omar Pasha, with a detachment of the

troops he had led at Oltenitza and Cetatea, repulsed a Russian attack on

Eupatoria (Feb. 17th). The besiegers steadily approached the White

Works, Mamelon, Redan and Flagstaff bastion, and as spring arrived the

logistic and material advantages of the allies returned. On Easter

Sunday (April 8th, 1855) another terrific bombardment began, which

lasted almost uninterruptedly for ten days. The White Works and the

Mamelon were practically destroyed, and the Russians, drawn up in

momentary expectation of assault, lost between six and seven thousand

men.

But the bombardment ceased, and assault did not follow. For, at the

allied headquarters and at Paris, grave differences of opinion on the

conduct of the war had developed. Napoleon III. wished active operations

to be undertaken against the Simferopol field army, whereas the leaders

on the spot, while admitting the theoretical soundness of the French

emperor's views, considered that they were wholly beyond the means of

the two armies. The discussions culminated in Canrobert's resignation of

the chief command, though he would not leave the army, and took a

subordinate post, which he filled with great distinction to the end of

the war. His successor, General Pelissier, was a soldier trained in the

hard school of Algerian warfare, and endowed, as was soon evident, with

the most inflexible resolution of character. He did not hesitate to take

up and maintain a position of decided opposition to his sovereign's

views; and the capture of Kerch (24th May 1855), carried out by a joint

expedition, was the first earnest of new vigour in the operations. This

success served all the purposes of a complete investment of Sevastopol,

the want of which had greatly troubled the allied generals. The line of

communication and supply between Sevastopol and the interior was cut,

vast stores intended for the fortress were destroyed, and the sea of

Azov was cleared of shipping. On the 25th Canrobert established himself

on the Fedukhin heights, his right continued along the Chernaya by

General la Marmora's newly arrived Sardinians, 15,000 strong, while

masses of Turks occupied the Vorontsov ridge and the old Balaklava

battlefield.

As June approached, Raglan and Pelissier, who, unlike most allied

commanders, were in complete accord and sympathy, initiated very

vigorous methods of attack. They decided that the works west of

Flagstaff could be comparatively neglected, and the full weight of the

bombardment once more fell upon the Mamelon and the Malakoff. Once more

these works were reduced to ruins, but the rest of the defences still

held out.

_The Assault of the Redan._--On the 7th of June 1855 the French stormed

the Mamelon and the White Works, the British captured and maintained

some quarries close to the Redan, and next morning the whole of

Todleben's envelope had become a siege-parallel. The losses were, as

usual, heavy, 8500 to the Russians, 6883 to the allies. This was merely

a preliminary to the great assault fixed for the 18th, the fortieth

anniversary of Waterloo. But meanwhile Pelissier's temper and Raglan's

health had been strained to breaking-point by continued dissensions with

Paris and London. The telegraph, a new strategic factor, daily tormented

the unfortunate commanders with the latest ideas of the Paris

strategists, and on the fateful day the two armies rushed on to failure.

The French attack on the Malakoff dwindled away into a meaningless

fire-fight: the British, attacking the Redan in face of a cross-fire of

one hundred heavy guns, at first succeeded in entering the work, but in

the end sustained a bloody and disastrous repulse. Of the six generals

who led the two attacks, four were killed and one wounded, and on the

17th and 18th the losses to the Russians were 5400, to the allies 4000.

But the defenders' resources were almost at an end, and the bombardment

reopened at once with increased fury. On the 20th Todleben was wounded,

and soon afterwards Nakhimov, the victor of Sinope, found a grave by the

side of three other admirals who had fallen in the defence. Pelissier

resolutely clung to his plans, in spite of the failure of the 18th,

against ever-increasing opposition at home. Raglan, worn out by his

troubles and heartbroken at the Redan failure, died on the 28th, mourned

by none more deeply than by his stern colleague.

_The Storming of the Malakoff._--During July the Russians lost on an

average 250 men a day, and at last it was decided that Gorchakov and the

field army must make another attack at the Chernaya--the first since

Inkerman. On the 16th of August the corps of Generals Liprandi and Read

furiously attacked the 37,000 French and Sardinian troops on the heights

above Traktir Bridge. The assailants came on with the greatest

determination, but the result was never for one moment doubtful. At the

end of the day the Russians drew off baffled, leaving 260 officers and

8000 men on the field. The allies only lost 1700. With this defeat

vanished the last chance of saving Sevastopol. On the same day (Aug.

16th) the bombardment once more reduced the Malakoff and its

dependencies to impotence, and it was with absolute confidence in the

result that Pelissier planned the final assault. On the 8th of September

1855 at noon, the whole of Bosquet's corps suddenly swarmed up to the

Malakoff. The fighting was of the most desperate kind. Every casemate,

every traverse, was taken and retaken time after time, but the French

maintained the prize, and though the British attack on the Redan once

more failed, the Russians crowded in that work became at once the

helpless target of the siege guns. Even on the far left, opposite

Flagstaff and Central bastions, there was severe hand-to-hand fighting,

and throughout the day the bombardment mowed down the Russian masses

along the whole line. The fall of the Malakoff was the end of the siege.

All night the Russians were filing over the bridges to the north side,

and on the 9th the victors took possession of the empty and burning

prize. The losses in the last assault had been very heavy, to the allies

over 10,000 men, to the Russians 13,000. No less than nineteen generals

had fallen on that day. But the crisis was surmounted. With the capture

of Sevastopol the war loses its absorbing interest. No serious

operations were undertaken against Gorchakov, who with the field army

and the remnant of the garrison held the heights at Mackenzie's Farm.

But Kinburn was attacked by sea, and from the naval point of view the

attack is interesting as being the first instance of the employment of

ironclads. An armistice was agreed upon on the 26th of February and the

definitive peace of Paris was signed on the 30th of March 1856.

_Decisive Importance of the Victory._--The importance of the siege of

Sevastopol, from the strategical point of view, lies beneath the

surface. It may well be asked, why did the fall of a place, at first

almost unfortified, bring the master of the Russian empire to his knees?

At first sight Russia would seem to be almost invulnerable to a sea

power, and no first success, however crushing, could have humbled

Nicholas I. Indeed the capture of Sevastopol in October 1854 would have

been far from decisive of the war, but once the tsar had decided to

defend to the last this arsenal, the necessity for which he was in the

best position to appreciate, the factor of unlimited resources operated

in the allies' favour. The sea brought to the invaders whatever they

needed, whilst the desert tracks of southern Russia were marked at every

step with the corpses of men and horses who had fallen on the way to

Sevastopol. The hasty nature, too, of the fortifications, which, daily

crushed by the fire of a thousand guns, had to be re-created every

night, made huge and therefore unprotected working parties necessary,

and the losses were correspondingly heavy. The double cause of loss

completely exhausted even Russia's resources, and, when large bodies of

militia appeared in line of battle at Traktir Bridge, it was obvious

that the end was at hand. The novels of Tolstoy give a graphic picture

of the war from the Russian point of view; the miseries of the desert

march, the still greater miseries of life in the casemates, and the

almost daily ordeal of manning the lines under shell-fire to meet an

assault that might or might not come; and no student of the siege can

leave it without feeling the profoundest respect for the courage,

discipline and stubborn loyalty of the defenders.

_Minor Operations._--A few words may be added on the minor operations of

the war. The Asiatic frontier was the scene of severe fighting between

the Turks and the Russians. Hindered at first by Shamyl and his

Caucasian mountaineers, the Russians stood on the defensive during 1853,

but next year they took the offensive, and, while their coast column won

an action on the 16th of June at the river Churuk, another force from

Erivan gained an important success on the Araxes and took Bayazid, and

General Bebutov completely defeated a Turkish column from Kars at Kuruk

Dere (July 31st, 1854). Next year Count Muraviev completely isolated the

garrison of Kars, which made a magnificent defence, inspired by Fenwick

Williams Pasha and other British officers. In one assault alone 7000

Russians were killed and wounded, and it was not until the 26th of

November 1855 that the fortress was forced to surrender. The naval

operations in the Baltic furnish many interesting examples for the study

of naval war. The allied fleet in 1854, after a first repulse, succeeded

in landing a French force under Baraguay d'Hilliers before Bomarsund,

and the place fell after an eight days' siege. In 1855 seventy allied

warships appeared before Kronstadt, which defied them. Reinforced they

attacked Sveaborg, but after two days' fighting had to draw off baffled.

The numbers engaged in the Crimean War and the cost in men and money is

stated in round numbers below. In May 1855 the Crimean theatre of war

occupied 174,500 allies (of whom 32,000 were British) and 170,000

Russians. The losses in battle were: allies 70,000 men, Russians

128,700; and the total losses, from all causes and in all theatres of

the war: allies 252,600 (including 45,000 English), Russians 256,000 men

(Berndt, _Die Zahl im Kriege_, p. 35). In the siege of Sevastopol the

Russians are stated by Berndt to have lost 102,670 men dead, wounded and

missing. Mulhall (_Dict. of Statistics_, 1903 ed., pp. 586-587) gives

much greater losses to each of the four powers principally engaged. The

cost of the war in money is stated by Mulhall to have been L69,000,000

to Great Britain, L93,000,000 to France, L142,000,000 to Russia.

AUTHORITIES.--Of the many works on the Crimean War those of the

greatest value are the following. English: the official work on the

_Siege of Sebastopol_; A. W. Kinglake, _The Invasion of the Crimea_

(London, 1863; "Student's edition" by Sir G. S. Clarke); Sir E. B.

Hamley, _The War in the Crimea_ (London, 1891); (Sir) W. H. Russell,

_The War in the Crimea_ (London, 1855-1856); Sir Evelyn Wood, _The

Crimea in 1854 and in 1894_ (London, 1895); Sir D. Lysons, _The

Crimean War from First to Last_ (London, 1895); Col. A. Lake, _The

Defence of Kars_ (London, 1857). French: Official, _Guerre de

l'Orient, Hist. de l'artillerie_ (Paris, 1859); (Marshal Niel), _Siege

de Sebastopol_ (official account of engineer operations, Paris, 1858),

and _Atlas historique et topographique de la guerre de Crimee_ (see

also the map of Russia by the French staff, sheets 56 and 57); Baron

C. de Bazancourt, _L'Expedition de Crimee_ (Paris, 1856); C. Rousset,

_Histoire de la guerre de Crimee_ (Paris, 1877). Russian: the work of

Todleben, _Die Vertheidigung von Sevastopol_ (St. Petersburg, 1864);

_Defense de Sebastopol_ (St Petersburg, 1863); Anitschkoff, _Feldzug

in der Krim_ (German trans., Berlin, 1857); Bogdanovitch, _Der

Orientkrieg_ (St Petersburg, 1876); Petroff, _Der Donaufeldzug

Russlands gegen Turkei_ (German trans., Berlin, 1891). Of German works

the most useful are: Kunz, _Die Schlachten und Treffen des

Krimkrieges_ (Berlin, 1889); _Der Feldzug in der Krim; Sammlung der

Berichte beider Parteien_ (Leipzig, 1855-1856). (C. F. A.)

CRIMINAL LAW. By criminal, or penal, law is now understood the law as to

the definition, trial and punishment of crimes, i.e. of acts or

omissions forbidden by law which affect injuriously public rights, or

constitute a breach of duties due to the whole community. The sovereign

is taken to be the person injured by the crime, as he represents the

whole community, and prosecutions are in his name. Criminal law includes

the rules as to the prevention, the investigation, prosecution and

punishment of crime (q.v.). It lays down what constitutes a criminal

offence, what proof is necessary to establish the fact of a criminal

offence and the culpability of the offender, what excuse or

justification for the act or omission can be legally admitted, what

procedure should be followed in a criminal court, what degrees and kinds

of punishment should be imposed for the various offences which come up

for trial. Finally, it regulates the constitution of the tribunals

established for the trial of offences according to the gravity of the

infraction of law, and deals with the organization of the police and the

proper management of prisons, and the maintenance of prison discipline.

(See EVIDENCE; PRISON; POLICE.)

Many acts or omissions, which are technically criminal and classified as

offences and punished by fine or imprisonment, cannot be said to have a

strictly criminal character, since they do not fall within the popular

conception of crime. To this class belong such matters as stopping up a

highway under claim of right, or failing to repair it, or allowing a

chimney to emit black smoke in excessive quantities, or to catch fire

from being unswept, or breach of building by-laws, or driving a motor

car on a highway at a speed in excess of the legal limit. Such breaches

of law are under the French law described as _contraventions_. In

England most of them are described as petty misdemeanours or offences

punishable on summary conviction, or less happily as "summary offences,"

and some writers speak of them as _mala prohibita_ as distinguished from

_mala in se_, i.e. as not involving any breach of ordinary morality

other than a breach of positive regulations. Continental jurists at

times speak of crimes _de droit commun_ (i.e. offences common to all

systems of law as distinguished from offences which are crimes only by a

particular municipal law). To this class of crimes _de droit commun_

belong most of the offences included in extradition treaties.

Criminal and civil law overlap, and many acts or omissions are not only

"wrongs" for which the person injured is entitled to recover

compensation for his own personal injury or damage, but also "offences"

for which the offender may be prosecuted and punished in the interest of

the state. In non-English European systems care is taken to prevent

civil remedies from being extinguished by punishment: it is quite usual

for the civil and criminal remedies to be pursued concurrently, the

individual appearing as _partie civile_ and receiving an award of

compensation by the judgment which determines the punishment to be

inflicted for the offence against the state. Under English law it is now

exceptional to allow civil and criminal remedies to be pursued

concurrently or in the same proceeding, or to award compensation to the

injured party in criminal proceedings, and he is usually left to seek

his remedy by action. Among the exceptions are the restitution of stolen

goods on conviction of the thief if the prosecution has been at the

instance or with the aid of the owner of the goods (Larceny Act 1861, S

100), and the award of compensation to persons who have suffered injury

to property by felony (Forfeiture Act 1870).

Development of modern criminal law.

As Sir Henry Maine says (_Ancient Law_, ed. 1906, p. 381), "All

civilized systems of law agree in drawing a distinction between offences

against the state or community (crimes or _crimina_) and offences

against the individual (wrongs, _torts_ or _delicta_)." But the process

of historical development by which this distinction has been ultimately

established has given great occasion for study of early laws and

institutions by eminent men, whose researches have disclosed the

extremely gradual evolution of the modern notion of criminal law

enforced by the state from the primitive conceptions and customs of

barbarous or semi-civilized communities. Of the oldest codes or digests

of customs which are available to the student it has been said the more

archaic a code the fuller and minuter is its penal legislation: but this

penal legislation is not true criminal law; it is the law, not of

crimes, but of wrongs. The intervention of the community or tribe is in

the first instance to persuade or compel the wronged person or his

family or tribe to abandon private vengeance or a blood feud and to

accept compensation for the wrong collectively or individually

sustained; and in the tariffs of compensation preserved in early laws

the importance of the injured person was the measure of the compensation

or vengeance which he was recognized to be entitled to exact, and the

scales of punishment or compensation are fixed from this point of view.

Babylon.

The laws of Khammurabi (2285-2242), the oldest extant code, contain

definite schemes and scales of offences and punishments, and indicate

the existence of tribunals to try the offences and to award the

appropriate remedy. The punishments are very severe. It is not

distinctly indicated whether the proceedings were at the instance of the

state or the person wronged, but compensation and penalty could be

awarded in the same proceeding, and the provisions as to the _lex

talionis_ and scale of compensation for injuries tend to show that the

procedure was on private complaint and not on behalf of the state (see

further BABYLONIAN LAW).

Greece.

Of the early criminal laws of Greece only fragments survive, e.g. those

of Solon and Draco. In Athens in early times crime was dealt with in the

Areopagus from the point of view of religion and by the archons from the

point of view of compensation: and it was only when the state interests

were directly affected that proceedings by way of [Greek: eisangelia] or

impeachment were taken. In classical times crimes fell to be tried by

panels of jurors or judges drawn from the assembly and described as

[Greek: dikasteria].

Rome.

The earliest materials for ascertaining the criminal law of Rome are to

be found in the Twelve Tables, Table VIII. The criminal law of imperial

Rome is collected in books 47 and 48 of the Digest. The classification

of crimes therein is capricious and anomalous. "In the early Roman law

the idea of legislative power was so fully grasped and that of judicial

power so little understood that the criminal jurisdiction arose in the

form of a legislative enactment applicable to particular cases." Crimes

were classified according to the mode of prosecution into:

1. _Publica judicia_, dealing with crimes specifically forbidden by

definite laws, which took the place of the standing commissions

(_quaestiones perpetuae_) of the time of the republic. In the earlier

stages of Roman law the state only interfered to punish offences which

gravely affected it, and did so by _privilegia_, which correspond to

impeachment or Bill of Pains and Penalties.

2. _Extraordinaria crimina_, crimes for which no special procedure or

punishment was provided: the punishment being, within limits, left to

the discretion of the judge and the prosecution to the injured party.

3. _Privata delicta_, offences for which a special form of action was

open to the injured party, e.g. _actio furti_.

The multiplicity of tribunals under the republic was replaced under the

empire by a complete organization of the judiciary throughout the

districts (dioceses) under the supervision of the emperor in his privy

council (see Maine, _Ancient Law_, ed. 1906, p. 393). Public prosecution

under the empire began by arrest of the accused, who was taken before an

_eirenarcha_, who examined him (by torture in the case of a slave or

parricide) and sent him on for trial before the _praeses_ of the diocese

([Greek: dioikesis]). Private prosecution followed, a procedure closely

resembling that of civil actions, beginning with _citatio_ (summons),

followed by _libellus_ or accusation, and appointment of a day for

hearing. The right of either party to call witnesses was very

imperfectly established.

Celtic law.

The early laws of the Celtic races are preserved as to Wales in the laws

of Hywel Dda, and as to Ireland in the Book of Aicill and other Brehon

law tracts, which are professional collections of precedents and

formulae made by the hereditary law caste (Brehons), whose business it

was "to pass sentence from precedents and commentaries." (See BREHON

LAWS.) The development of Celtic law was arrested by the Saxon and

Anglo-Norman conquest: but the materials preserved indicate an origin

common with that of Germanic law.

The special characteristics of Irish criminal law, if it can be so

called, were:--

1. The law was customary and theoretically unchangeable, and no

legislative or judicial authority existed to alter or enforce it.

2. All crimes were treated as wrongs, for which compensation was made by

assessment of damages by a consensual tribunal whose power to make

awards depended on submission of the parties and the ultimate sanction

of public opinion or custom. A customary tariff for compensation existed

for all offences from wilful murder downwards. No crime was unamendable.

The Irish law recognized a body price or compensation (S. _bot_) and an

honour price or _eric_ (S. _wer_), for which the family or tribe of the

offender was collectively liable; but there is no clearly ascertained

equivalent to the Saxon _wite_, or fine to the chief.

Germanic law.

The laws of the Germanic tribes, so far as preserved in the _Germania_

of Tacitus, and in the compilations of customs known as the Salic and

Ripuarian laws, the Leges Barbarorum, the Dooms of AEthelberht and the

collections of Anglo-Saxon law and custom (to be found in Thorpe's

_Ancient Laws and Institutes of England_), do not indicate any adequate

or definite division between crimes and causes of civil action, but,

like the laws of Babylon, recognize the system and contain the tariffs

of compensation for wrongs. The idea of the compensation was originally

to put an end (_finis_) to blood feuds and private war or vengeance.

These laws formed the foundation of the criminal law of Germany,

including the Netherlands, of England and of Scandinavia. But in each

country the development of criminal law has been affected by influences

other than Germanic, mainly consisting in an infusion more or less great

of ideas derived from Roman law. In England under Alfred some part of

the Levitical law (Exod. xxi. 12-15) was incorporated, just as in 1567

the criminal law as to incest in Scotland was taken bodily from

Leviticus xviii.

Anglo-Saxon law.

The stage which the development of criminal law had reached in England

by the reign of Edward the Confessor is thus described by Pollock and

Maitland (_Hist. Eng. Law_, ii. 447): "On the eve of the Norman Conquest

what we may call the criminal law of England (but it was also the law of

torts or civil wrongs) contained four elements which deserve attention:

Its past history had in the main consisted of the varying relations

between them. We have to speak of outlawry, of the blood feud

(_faidus_), of the tariffs of _wer_ and _wite_ (_fredus_ or _friede_),

and _bot_, of punishment in life and limb. As regards the malefactor the

community may assume one of four attitudes: it may make war on him; it

may have him exposed to the vengeance of those whom he has wronged; it

may suffer him to make atonement; it may inflict on him a determinate

punishment, death, mutilation or the like." The _wite_ or sum paid to

the king or lord is now thought to have been originally not a penalty

but a fee for time and trouble taken in hearing and determining a

controversy. But at an early stage fines for breach of peace were

imposed. An evil result from the public point of view followed from the

system of atoning for crime by pecuniary mulct. "Criminal jurisdiction

became a source of revenue." So early as Canute's time certain crimes

were pleas of the crown; but grants of criminal jurisdiction, with the

attendant forfeitures, were freely made to prelates, towns and lords of

manors, and some traces of this jurisdiction still survive (e.g. the

criminal jurisdiction of the justices of the _soke_ (_soc_) of

Peterborough, and the rights of some boroughs, e.g. Nottingham, to

forfeitures). Outlawry soon ceased to be a mode of punishment, and

became, as it still is, a process to compel submission to justice (Crown

Office Rules, 1906, rules 88-110). Certain crimes, such as murder, rape,

arson and burglary, became unamendable or bootless, i.e. placed the

offender's life, limb, lands and goods at the king's mercy. These crimes

came to be generally described by the name felony (q.v.). Other crimes

became punishable by fines which took the place of _wites_. These were

styled trespasses and correspond to what is now called misdemeanour

(q.v.).

Anglo-Norman period.

Minor acts of violence, dishonesty or nuisance, were dealt with in

seigniorial and borough courts by presentment of the jurors of courts

baron and courts leet, and punished by fine or in some cases by pillory,

tumbril or stocks. Grave acts were dealt with by the sheriff as breaches

of the peace. He sat with the freeholders in the county court, which sat

twice a year, or in the hundred court, which sat every four weeks. So

far as this involved dealing with pleas of the crown the sheriff's

jurisdiction was abolished and was ultimately replaced by that of the

justices or conservators of the peace. The sheriff then ceased to be a

judge in criminal cases, but remained and still is in law responsible

for the peace of his county, and is the officer for the execution of the

law. The royal control over crime was effectually established by the

itinerant justices sent regularly throughout the realm, who not only

dealt with the ordinary proprietary and fiscal rights of the crown but

also with the graver crimes (treason and felony), and ultimately were

commissioned to deal with the less grave offences now classed as

indictable misdemeanours. The change resulted from the strengthening of

royal authority throughout England, which enabled the crown gradually to

enlarge the pleas of the crown and to weaken and finally to supersede

the criminal jurisdiction, notably of the sheriff, but also of prelates

and lords in ecclesiastical and other manors and franchises. "In the

early English laws and constitution there existed a national sovereignty

and original criminal jurisdiction, but the ideas of legislative power

and crime were very slowly developed." During the 12th century the

criminal law was affected by the influence of the church, which

introduced into it elements from the Canon and Mosaic laws, and also by

the memory of the Roman empire and the renewed study of the Roman law,

which enabled lawyers to draw a clearer distinction than had before been

recognized between the criminal (_dolus_) and civil (_culpa_) aspect of

wrongful acts. The Statute of Treasons (1351) is to a large extent an

admixture of Roman with feudal law; and to the same source is probably

due the more careful analysis of the mental elements necessary to create

criminal responsibility, summed up in the somewhat misleading expression

_nemo reus est nisi mens sit rea_.

In the 14th century justices of the peace and quarter sessions were

established to deal with offences not sufficiently important for the

king's judges, and from that time the course of criminal justice in

England has run substantially on the same lines, with the single and

temporary interruption caused by the court of star chamber.

Classification of crimes.

The penal laws of modern states classify crimes somewhat differently,

but in the main on the same general principles, dividing them into:--

1. Offences against the external and internal order and security of the

state.

2. Offences against the administration of police and against public

authority.