welcomed. In 1519, the Earl of Surrey entertained "Gypsions" at Tendring
Hall, Suffolk, and gave them a safe-conduct. Still earlier in 1505,
Anthony Gaginus, Earl of Little Egypt, had a letter of recommendation
from James IV. of Scotland to the King of Denmark. James V. bestowed a
charter upon James Faa, Lord and Earl of Little Egypt, by which he was
privileged to execute justice upon his followers, much in the same way as
the great barons were authorised to deal with their vassals. But they soon
fell out of favour. In England, in the twenty-second year of Henry VIII.
an act of parliament was passed which sets forth that there are certain
outlandish people, who not profess any craft, or trade, whereby to
maintain themselves, but go about in great numbers from place to place,
using craft and subtlety to impose on people, making them believe that
they understood the art of foretelling to men and women their good or ill
fortune, by palmistry, whereby they frequently defraud people of their
money, likewise are guilty of thefts and highway robberies; it is ordered
that the said vagrants, commonly called Egyptians, in case they remain
sixteen days in the kingdom, shall forfeit their goods and chattels to the
king and be further liable to imprisonment. In 1537, Cromwell writes to
the Lord President of the Marches of Wales, that the "Gipcyans" had
promised to leave the kingdom in return for a general pardon for their
previous offences, and exhorts the authorities to see that their
deportation is effected. Many were sent to Norway, but the effort to
extirpate them from the kingdom entirely failed.[10] By an act of 1554, a
penalty of L40 was to be inflicted upon any one knowingly importing them.
Those gipsies, following "their old accustomed devlishe and noughty
practises," were to be treated as felons, but exception was made in favour
of such as placed themselves in the service of some "honest and able
inhabitant." Many were executed, but the remnant survived and managed to
hold a yearly meeting at the Peak Cavern or Kelbrook, near Blackheath.
Still sterner was the law passed in 1562-3, which made it felony for any
one born within the kingdom to join the fellowship of vagabonds calling
themselves Egyptians. The previous acts had referred to the gipsies as an
outlandish people, but now the native born were brought equally within the
meshes of this sanguinary law. "Throughout the reign of Elizabeth," as
Borrow remarks, "there was a terrible persecution of the gipsy race; far
less, however, on account of the crimes which were actually committed,
than from a suspicion which was entertained that they harboured amidst
their companies priests and emissaries of Rome." The harrying of the
missionary priests was in part dictated by the spirit of religious
persecution, but in a still greater degree by the conviction that they
were political emissaries, aiming at the subversion of the kingdom. The
priests on the English mission had often to disguise themselves, and at
times may have assumed the garb of wandering beggars, but they are not
likely to have consorted with the Romans, whose language would be strange
to them, and whose heathenish indifference to all dogmas, rites, and
ceremonies, would be specially distasteful to zealous Catholics.
After "the spacious times" of great Elizabeth, the gipsies had a rest from
special oppression, though they were of course still in jeopardy from the
harsh laws as to vagrancy and those minor crimes, that are their
characteristic failings. Romany girls were flogged for filching and
fortune-telling, and Romany men were hanged for horse-stealing. They were
looked upon with suspicion, and it was easy enough to raise prejudice
against them. This was shewn in the notorious case of Elizabeth Canning.
She was a girl of eighteen, employed as a domestic servant at
Aldermanbury, and in 1753, disappeared for four weeks. On her return she
asserted that she had been abducted and detained in a loft by gipsies, who
gave her only bread and water to eat. Their aim she declared was to induce
her to adopt an immoral life. Mrs. Wells, Mary Squires, George Squires,
Virtue Hall, Fortune and Judith Natus, were arrested, and Wells and
Squires were committed for trial. The proceedings, partly before Henry
Fielding the novelist, were conducted with a laxity that seems now to be
almost inconceivable. At the Old Bailey trial there was a remarkable
conflict of evidence, but in the end Mrs. Wells was condemned to be burned
in the hand, and Mary Squires to be hanged. Sir Christopher Gascoyne then
Lord Mayor, was satisfied that there had been a miscarriage of justice and
made enquiries, a respite was obtained and finally the law officers of the
crown recommended the grant of a free pardon to Squires. The natural
sequel was the prosecution of Canning for perjury. Fortune and Judith
Natus now swore that they had slept each night in the loft where Canning
declared she had been imprisoned, but it was very natural that people
should ask why they had not given this important evidence at the previous
trial. Mary Squires' alibi was sworn to by thirty-eight witnesses who had
seen her in Dorsetshire, and was, to some extent, invalidated by
twenty-seven who swore that she was in Middlesex at the time. As she was
too remarkable for her ugliness to be easily mistaken, there must have
been some very "hard swearing." Canning was convicted of perjury and
transported, but the secret of her absence from New Year's Day, 1553,
until the 29th of January was never divulged. The case excited great
interest, and the controversy divided the whole of the busy, idle "town,"
into "Canningites" and "Gipsyites."
The Tudor law (22 Henry VIII., c. 10) was repealed as "of excessive
severity" in 1783 (23 George III., c. 51). The later legislation provides
that persons wandering in the habit and form of Egyptians, and pretending
to palmistry and fortune-telling, are to be deemed rogues and vagabonds
(17 Geo. II., c. 5., 3 Geo. IV., c. xl.), and is liable to three months'
imprisonment (5 Geo. IV., c. lxxxiii.), and encamping on a turnpike road
involved a penalty of forty shillings (3 Geo. IV., c. cxxvi., 5 and 6
William IV., c. 50). Some of the older enactments remained on the statute
book, though not enforced, until the passing of the statute law Revision
Act of 1863, by which many obsolete parliamentary enactments were swept
away.
By the famous Poynings Act, English laws were declared applicable to
Ireland. The gipsies were never common in the Isle of Saints, but by a
special act they were, in 1634, declared to be rogues and vagabonds (10
and 11 Car. I., c. 4).
There are acts of the Scottish Parliament as early as 1449, directed
against "sorners, overliers, and masterful beggars with horse, hounds, or
other goods," and that this would well describe the earlier gangs of
gipsies is undeniable, but whether they were Romanis or Scots is a matter
of controversy not easily decided in the absence of more definite
evidence. A tradition of the Maclellans of Bombie says that the crest of
the family was assumed on the slaying of the chief of a band of saracens
or gipsies from Ireland. The conqueror received the barony of Bombie from
the king as a reward. Having thus restored the fortunes of the family, the
young laird of Bombie took for his crest a moor's head with the motto
"Think on." If this legend was evidence, which it is not, there were gipsy
marauders in Galloway in the middle of the fifteenth century. But in 1505,
we have the entry of a gift by the King of Scotland of seven pounds to the
"Egiptianis." In the same year there is a letter already named, in which
"Anthonius Gagino," or Gawino, is recommended to the King of Denmark. In
1527, Eken Jacks, master of a band of gipsies, was made answerable for a
robbery from a house at Aberdeen. In 1539, a similar charge was brought,
but not proved, against certain friends and servants to "Earl George,
callet of Egipt." This chieftain was one of the celebrated Faa tribe. In
1540, George and John Faa were ordered by the bailies of Aberdeen to
remove their company and goods from the town. This is the first action of
a Scottish authority against the gipsies as gipsies. But, by a charter
dated four days before the municipal decree, James V. confirms to "our
lovit Johnne Faw, lord and erle of Little Egipt," full power to execute
justice over his tribe, some of whom had rebelled and forsaken his
jurisdiction. In 1541, an act of the Lords of Council and Session decreed
the banishment of the gipsies from the realm within thirty days, because
of "the gret theftes and scathis" done by them. Some of them passed over
the border, but not for long, and in 1553 the Faas again had a charter
upholding their rights of lordship against Lalow and other rebels of their
company. And in the next year their is a pardon to four Faas for the
"slachter of umquhile Ninian Smaill."
The gipsies had the favour of the Roslyn family, and it is said that Sir
William Sinclair rescued "ane Egiptian" from the gibbet in the Burgh Muir,
"ready to be strangled," and that in gratitude the tribe used to go to
Roslyn yearly and act several plays in May and June. In 1573, and again in
1576, the gipsies were ordered to leave the realm, but the decree was
never put in force. When Lady Foulis was tried in 1590, one charge was
that she had sent a servant to the gipsies for advice as to poison to be
administered to "the young laird of Fowles and the young Lady Balnagoune."
When James VI. held a High Court of Justicary at Holyrood in 1587, for the
reformation of enormities, the offenders to be dealt with included "the
wicked and counterfeit thieves and limmers calling themselves Egyptians."
There were several enactments of the Scottish Parliament in 1574, 1579,
1592, and 1597. These were all aimed at the nomadic habits of the race,
but the settled gipsies were left unmolested. "Strong beggars and their
children" were to be employed in common work for their whole life, and it
is said that salt masters and coal masters thus made serfs of many. In
1603, there was a special "Act anent the Egiptians," which declared it
"lesome" for anyone to put to death any gipsy, man, woman, or child,
remaining in the country after a certain date. Moses Faa appealed against
it as a loyal subject, and found a security in David, Earl of Crawford.
This was in 1609, but in 1611 four of the Faas were tried at Edinburgh
under the acts against the gipsies, and were convicted and executed on the
same day. Constables and justices of the peace were exhorted to put the
law in force. Four gipsies, who could not find securities that they would
leave the kingdom, were sentenced to be hanged in 1616, but were reprieved
and probably released. In 1624, eight were executed on the Burgh Muir, but
the women and children were simply exiled. In 1636, a number were
condemned at Haddington, the men to be hanged and _the women to be
drowned_. Women who had children were to be scourged and branded in the
face. In the latter half of the seventeenth century many were sent to the
plantations in Virginia, Barbadoes, and Jamaica.
Generally, however, the stringent laws were not stringently administered,
and from fear or influence of some kind the gipsies often escaped.
The British gipsies in our own day find that whilst the law is dealt out
to them with perfect impartiality, the social pressure is decidedly
against them. At such watering-places as Brighton and Blackpool--to name
two extremes--they tell fortunes as though there were no statutes in that
case made and provided. But it is not easy for them to keep on the road.
The time cannot be far off when they must live with the _gaujos_[11] as
house-dweller or perish from the land.
Commonwealth Law and Lawyers.
EDWARD PEACOCK, F.S.A.
The great Civil War as it is called, that is the struggle between Charles
the First and his parliament, is memorable in many respects. No student of
modern history can dispense with some knowledge of it, and the more the
better, for it was the result of many things which had happened in the far
distant past, and we may safely say that the great French Revolution,
which produced some good, and such an incalculable amount of evil would
have run a far different course to that which it did, had not the
political ideals of the men who took part in that terrible conflict been
deeply influenced by what had taken place in England a century and a half
before.
As to the civil wars which had occurred in England in previous days,
little need be said. They were either dynastic--the struggle of one man or
one family against another--or they were religious revolts against the
Tudors, by those who vainly endeavoured to re-establish the old order of
things in opposition to the will of the reigning monarch and the political
servants who supported the throne. The struggle between Charles and the
Long Parliament was far different from this. That religion in some degree
entered into the conflict which was raging in men's mind long ere the
storm burst it would be childish to deny, but it was not so much, except
in the case of a very few fanatics, a conflict between different forms of
faith as because a great number of the English gentry, and almost the
whole of the mercantile class, which had then become a great power, felt
that they had the best reasons for believing that it was the deliberate
intention of the King and the desperate persons who advised him, to levy
taxes without the consent of parliament. This may occasionally have been
done in former reigns, but it is the opinion of most of those who have
studied the subject in latter days, so far as we can see, without
prejudice, that in every case it was illegal. Whether this be so or not,
it must be remembered that times were in the days of Charles the First,
far different from what his predecessors the Plantagenets and Tudors had
known. A great middle class had arisen partly by the division of property
consequent on the dispersion of the monastic lands, and partly also by the
break up of the vast feudal estates, some of which had fallen into the
hands of the Crown by confiscation, others been sold by their owners to
pay for their own personal extravagence.
Though murmurs had existed for many years, it was not until the memorable
ship-money tax was proposed that affairs became really grave. Had England
been threatened by an invasion such as the Spanish Armada, there can be no
doubt that a mere illegality in the mode of levying taxes to meet the
emergency would have been regarded as of little account, but in the
present case there was no overwhelming need, and it must be borne in mind
that to add to the national irritation the two first Stuarts were almost
uniformally unsuccessful in their foreign wars. It is to Attorney General
Noy that we owe the arbitrary ship-money tax. He was a dull, dry, legal
antiquary of considerable ability, whose works, such as his _Treatise
concerning Tenures and Estates_; _The Compleat Lawyer_; _The Rights of the
Crown_, and others of a like character, are yet worth poring over by
studious persons. Such a man was well fitted for historical research, no
one of his time could have edited and annotated _The Year Books_ more
efficiently, but he had no conception of the times in which he lived, the
narrow legal lore which filled his mind produced sheer muddle-headedness,
when called upon to confront an arbitrary king face to face with an
indignant people. That there was less to be said against this form of
royal taxation than any other that legal ingenuity could light upon must
be admitted, but as events shewed the course he advised the king to take,
was little short of madness. John Hampden, who represented one of the
oldest and most highly respected races of the English gentry--nobles as
they would be called in any land but our own--set the example of refusing
to pay this unjust levy. The trial lasted upwards of three weeks, and the
men accounted most learned in the law were employed in the case. Sir John
Bankes, the owner of Corfe Castle, Sir Edward Littleton, and others were
for the King. Oliver Saint John and Mr. Holborn were for Hampden.
Concerning Holborn little seems to be known, but Saint John made for
himself a great name. His speeches are marvellously learned, shewing an
amount of reading which is simply wonderful when we call to mind that in
those days all our national records were unprinted, and almost all of them
without calendar or index of any sort. It must, however, be remembered
that in those days lawyers of both branches of the profession were well
acquainted not only with the language in which our records were written,
but also with the hands employed at various periods, and the elaborate
system of contraction used in representing the words.
A full report of this memorable trial is to be found in Rushworth's
_Historical Collections_, volume ii. parts 1 and 2. Carlyle in his
_Letters and Speeches of Oliver Cromwell_, in the emphatic diction he was
accustomed to use says that Saint John was "a dark, tough man of the
toughness of leather,"[12] but he does not dwell on his great learning and
general ability, as he ought to have done. That Saint John's heart was in
his work for his client we are well assured. That from a legal point of
view, Hampden was his only client, we well know, but as a matter of fact,
it is no exaggeration to say that he represented the people of England.
The decision went in favour of the crown, which was from the first a
foregone conclusion. It was a legal victory, but like many lesser
victories won before and since success was the sure road to ruin. The sum
contended for was absurdly small--twenty shillings only--but on that pound
piece hung all our liberties; whether we were to continue a free people or
whether we were to have our liberties filched away from us, as had already
been the case in France and Spain. A sullen discontent brooded over the
land, there was no rioting, but in hall and castle, country parsonage and
bar-parlour, grave men were shaking their heads and asking what was to
come next, all knew that a storm was brewing, the only question was when
and where it would burst. Events changed rapidly, and Saint John though he
took no very prominent part in the party struggles ere the war broke out,
was undoubtedly the chief legal adviser of those who were in opposition to
the faction which desired to make England a despotic monarchy. Such was
the case during the war which ended in the tragic death of the king, and
the establishment of a Republican form of government under the name of the
Commonwealth. Saint John once again appears in a public manner which
indicates that he was a brave man who had no more fear of the pistol and
dagger of the assassin, than he had of the corrupt dealings of those who
for a time, to their own imminent peril had misgoverned our country. This
time we find him sent by the Commonwealth as ambassador to the seven
United Provinces, then as now commonly called Holland, on account of the
two provinces of north and south Holland, being by far the most
influential states in that republic. The Dutch though republicans
themselves, had during the latter part of our Civil War shewn sympathy
with the cause of the Royalists. After the execution of the king, this
feeling became naturally much intensified. On the other hand our newly
established republic was for many reasons both of politics and religion
very desirous of being on good terms with a sister commonwealth so very
near at hand. To explain matters and perhaps to settle the heads of a
definite treaty, the English government sent Isaac Doreslaus, or Doorslaer
as their ambassador. He was by birth a Dutchman and a very learned lawyer.
He had come to this country before, the war broke out in 1642. He was then
made, probably through the influence of his friend Sir Henry Mildmay,
"Advocate of the Army."[13] His great knowledge of Civil Law, which had
been much neglected in England in times subsequent to the Reformation,
rendered him of great service in his new position of Judge Advocate of the
Army. For the same reason he soon afterwards was created one of the judges
of the Admiralty Court. He became especially hateful to the Royalists from
his having assisted in preparing the charges against Charles the First. In
May, 1649, he sailed for Holland as Envoy of the English government to the
Hague. He had only spent a short time there, when, while at supper in the
Witte Zwaan (White Swan) Inn, some five or six ruffians with their faces
hidden by masks, rushed into the room where he, in company with eleven
other guests were sitting. Two of these wretches made a murderous attack
on a Dutch gentleman of the company, mistaking him for Dorislaus. Finding
out their error they set upon the Envoy and slew him with many wounds,
crying out as they did so, "Thus dies one of the King's judges." The
leader of this execrable gang was Col. Walter Whitford, son of Walter
Whitford, D.D. The murderer received a pension for this "generous
action"[14] after the Restoration.
The English Parliament gave their faithful servant a magnificent funeral
in Westminster Abbey, June 14, 1649, but when Charles the Second ascended
the throne, his body was disturbed. His dust rests along with that of
Admiral Blake and other patriots in a pit somewhere in Saint Margaret's
churchyard.[15] Dorislaus, though a foreigner, ought to rank among our
great English lawyers, for his services were devoted entirely to his
adopted country. Whatever our opinions may be as to those differences
which were the forerunners of so much bloodshed and crime, we must bear in
mind that many of the foremost men on both sides were actuated by the
highest principles of honour. The study of Canon Law had been prohibited
in the preceding century, and the Civil Law with which it has so intimate
a connection, though not made contraband, was so much discouraged that it
is no exaggeration to say that the knowledge of it was confined to a very
few. Selden, whose wide grasp of mind took in almost every branch of
learning as it was known in his day, is the only English lawyer we can
think of who had mastered these two vast subjects. This is the more
remarkable as he was of humble parentage; the son of a wandering minstrel
it is said, but from the first his passion for learning overmastered all
difficulties. It must, however, be borne in mind that according to the
custom of those times when his abilities became known, he met with more
than one generous patron.
We must for a moment return to Saint John who was selected in 1652, to
represent his country in Holland. There was not, as there is now a trained
body of men devoted to the diplomatic service. The reasons why Saint John
was chosen for this important office are not clear. He was a great and
widely read lawyer, who we apprehend was trusted with this difficult
mission, not only because the government were assured of his probity, but
because the relations between Holland and this country depended on many
subtile antiquarian details which a mere student of the laws as they were
then, would have been unable to unravel. The basis of the sea codes by
which the various nations of christendom professed to be ruled, was the
Laws of Oleron (Leges Uliarences). They were promulgated by Richard the
First of England, on an island in the Bay of Acquitaine. How far they were
ever suited for their purpose may be questioned, but it is certain that as
centuries rolled on, they had though often quoted, ceased to have any
restraining power, and as a consequence Spain, England, Holland, and other
powers were guilty of constant acts of what we should now call piracy. A
lasting treaty with Holland, could Saint John achieve it, would have been
of immense advantage, but the Dutch were in no mood for an alliance on
equal terms. It was a brave thing for Saint John to undertake so arduous a
mission, for he not only run the risk of ignominous failure, but also was
in no little danger from the savage desperadoes who thought they did the
cause of their exiled master service by murdering the agents of the
English government. When Saint John arrived at the Hague he was put off by
slow and evasive answers, which soon shewed to him not only that his own
time was being wasted, but what was to him of far more account, the honour
of his country was being played with. He gave a proud, short, emphatic
reply to the Dutch sophistries, and at once returned home again, to cause
the celebrated Navigation Act to be passed, forbidding any goods to be
imported into England, except in English ships, or in the ships of the
country where the articles were produced. This was well-nigh ruin to the
trade of the Dutch, who were then the great carriers of the world.