name of William Prynne be entirely passed over, and yet it is not as a
lawyer that his name has become memorable. Had he been a mere barrister at
law he would long since have been forgotten, but he was an enthusiastic
puritan of the presbyterian order, and a no less enthusiastic antiquary.
He had probably read as many old records as Saint John or Selden, but had
by no means their faculty of turning them to good account. He first comes
prominently before us as attacking the amusements of the court, especially
theatrical entertainments. For this he was proceeded against in the Star
Chamber, sentenced to pay five thousand pounds and have his ears cut off;
for an attack on episcopacy he was fined another five thousand pounds and
sentenced once more to have his ears cut off. He afterwards bore a
prominent part in the trial of Archbishop Laud. All along he continued to
pour forth a deluge of pamphlets. He attacked Cromwell with such boldness,
that the Protector felt called upon to imprison him in Dunster Castle,
where however, his confinement was of a most easy character. He is said
while there to have amused himself by arranging the Lutterell Charters,
for which that noble home is famous. He took the side of Charles the
Second at the Restoration, and as a reward was made keeper of the records
in the Tower, a post for which he was peculiarly well fitted.
There is probably nothing which distinguishes the periods of the
Commonwealth and the Protectorate more markedly from other times of
successful insurrection, than the very slight alteration which the new
powers introduced into the laws of England. The monarchy, it is true, was
swept away, but the judges went on circuit; the courts of Chancery and
common-law sat as usual, the Lords of Manors held their courts, and the
justices of peace discharged their various functions as if they had been
the times of profoundest peace. No confiscations took place, as had been
the case in the reign of Henry the Eighth and his successor, except in
cases where the owners had been engaged in what the state regarded as
rebellion, and even with regard to those who had fought in what is known
as the first war, almost everyone was let off by a heavy fine. A list of
these sufferers may be seen in _A Catalogue of the lords Knights and
Gentlemen that have compounded for their Estates_ (_London Printed for
Thomas Dring at the Signe of the George in Fleet Street_, neare Clifford's
Inne, 1655.) The book is imperfect and very inaccurate. This is not of
much consequence however, as the documents from which it is compiled known
as _The Royalist Composition Papers_, are preserved in the record office,
and are open to all enquirers. Those who madly engaged in what is known as
the second war, had their estates confiscated by three acts of parliament
of the years 1651 and 1652. These were reprinted and indexed for the
_Index Society_ in 1879. These latter had their estates given back to
themselves or their heirs on the Restoration. It does not seem that those
who were fined, except in a very few cases had any return made to them.
There have been few civil wars ancient or modern wherein the unsuccessful
have been so tenderly treated. Yet sufferings of the poorer classes among
the Royalists must have been very great. Next to the arbitrary conduct of
the King and those immediately about his person, was the provocation which
the Parliamentarians thought that the established church had given,
firstly because many of the bishops and clergy maintained an extreme
theory of the Divine Right of Kings, which is said first to have been
taught in this country by Archbishop Cranmer. If this opinion were really
accepted as more than a mere figure of flattering oratory, it made those
who complied with it mere slaves to the sovereign, however tyrannical or
wicked he might prove himself. The second ground of resentment was that
they thought Archbishop Laud and many of the bishops and clergy, concealed
Roman Catholics, "disguised Papists," as the common expression ran. We do
not believe this charge with regard to Laud or most of the others so
rashly accused. We are _quite sure_ it was not so if their writings are to
be taken as a test of their feelings. Whatever may have been the truth,
there is no doubt that even the more tolerant of what may be called the
low-church party feared the worst. As early as 11th February, 1629, Oliver
Cromwell, who was then member for Huntingdon, made a speech in which he
said, "He had heard by relation from one Dr. Beard ... that Dr. Alablaster
had preached flat Popery at Paul's Cross, and that the Bishop of
Winchester (Dr. Neale), had commanded him as his Diocesan, he should
preach nothing to the contrary."[16] So inflamed, however, were men's
minds that as soon as the Parliamentary party was strong enough, Laud was
indicted for high treason and beheaded.
One of the first works of the Parliament when strong enough, was to
abolish the _Book of Common Prayer_, and put a new compilation called the
_Directory_ in its place. The use of the Prayer Book was forbidden not
only in public offices of religion, but in private houses also. For the
first offence five pounds was to be levied, for the second ten, and for
the third the delinquent was to suffer one year's imprisonment.[17]
Whether this stringent law was rigorously inforced we cannot tell.
Probably in many cases the local justices would be far more lenient to the
clergy who were their neighbours, that would be the legislators at
Westminster, whose passions were fanned by listening to the popular
preachers. Not content with interfering with the service-book, various
acts were passed relating to "Scandalous, Ignorant, and Insufficient
ministers." That the commissioners who put these acts in force removed
some evil persons we do not doubt, but if John Walker's _attempt towards
recovering an account of the number and sufferings of the Clergy of the
Church of England, who were sequestered ... in the Grand Rebellion_, be
not very grossly exaggerated, which we see no reason, to believe, many
innocent persons must have had very hard treatment.
The marriage laws of England were in a vague and unsatisfactory state from
the reign of Edward the Sixth, until the Commonwealth time. An attempt was
made in 1653 to alter them. Banns were to be published either at Church or
in the nearest market town on three market days, after this the marriage
was to take place before a justice of peace. Many entries of marriages of
this kind are to be found in our parochial registers. English was made the
language of the law in 1650, but Latin was restored to the place of honour
it had so long held, when the Restoration took place.
Cock-Fighting in Scotland.
It is highly probable that the Romans introduced cock-fighting into this
country. It is generally believed that the sport was made popular by
Themistocles. On one occasion he saw two cocks fighting, and their courage
greatly impressed him, and he felt such exhibitions might teach a useful
lesson of bravery to those who witnessed them. Periodical contests were
exhibited, and were popular amongst the Greeks and Romans and with other
nations, and were much appreciated by a large section of the inhabitants
of this land. In "Bygone England," by William Andrews, F.R.H.S. (London
1892), will be found a long account of "Fighting-Cocks in Schools." One of
the earliest accounts of the pastime in England, says Mr. Andrews, occurs
in a "Description of the City of London," by William Fitzstephen, who
wrote in the reign of Henry II., and died in the year 1191. He records
that it was the annual custom on Shrove Tuesday for the boys to bring
their game cocks to the schools, to turn the schoolrooms into cockpits,
the masters and pupils spending the morning witnessing the birds fighting.
Old town accounts contain many references to this custom, for example at
Congleton, Cheshire, is the following item:--
"1601. Payd John Wagge for dressynge
the schoolhouse at the great
[Congleton] cockfyghte." L0 0s. 4d.
Hugh Miller, the famous geologist, who was born in the year 1802, in his
popular volume "My Schools and Schoolmasters," gives a graphic account of
that amusement in the Cromarty grammar school where he received his
education. "The school," says Miller, "like almost all other grammar
schools of the period in Scotland, had its yearly cock-fight, preceded by
two holidays and a half, during which the boys occupied themselves in
collecting and bringing up the cocks. And such was the array of fighting
birds mustered on the occasion, that the day of the festival from morning
till night used to be spent in fighting out the battle. For weeks after it
had passed, the school floor continued to retain its deeply stained
blotches of blood, and the boys would be full of exciting narratives
regarding the glories of gallant birds who had continued to fight until
their eyes had been pecked out; or who in the moment of victory, had
dropped dead in the middle of the cock-pit." Miller at some length
denounces the cruel sport.
In England cock-fighting is prohibited by statute 12 and 13 Vict. 3, 92,
under which every person who shall in any manner encourage, aid, or assist
at the fighting or baiting of any bull, bear, badger, dog, cock, or other
animal, shall forfeit and pay a penalty not exceeding L5 for every such
offence. In Scotland it was not illegal until quite recently. An act was
passed in 1850 known as the "Cruelty to Animals (Scotland) Act," but the
wording of the statute was found not to include the game or fighting-cock.
The sport became popular and the law could not touch those that took part
in the cruel amusement. It was felt to be a national scandal, and to
prevent it, a short statute was passed on 30th May, 1895, whereby the
definition of the word _animal_ in the 11th section was amended by adding
at the end thereof the words "or any game or fighting-cock, or other
domestic fowl or bird."
Mr. Robert Bird, the genial and gifted author of "Law Lyrics," a volume
which has been warmly welcomed by the public and the press, has made
cock-fighting the subject of a clever poem.
COCKIELEERIE-LAW.
BY ROBERT BIRD.
_In Full Court, Edinburgh, 23rd December, 1892._
Six legal wigs, like well-plumed tappit hens,
Sat brooding o'er a pair of fighting cocks;
While lesser wigs, begowned, and brief in hand,
Declaimed in flowing periods, of the fray,
Like ancient bards, that wanted but their harps,
Their wallets, ballad verse, and song, to make
The very goose quills, sleeping on the bench,
Awake! take sides and spill each other's ink.
And as they spake, a legal fog dropt down
Upon the learned six, and each beheld,
In green mirage, born of the cloud of words,
Two cocks, Game cocks, crop-combed, erect, and slim,
With feathers dipped in crimson, gold, and blue,
Frill-necked, with trailing wings and spurs of steel,
That on each other flew and pecked and spurred,
And spurred and pecked again, until the Court
Reeked like a cock-pit, and the crowd of wigs,--
Of boyish idle wigs,--took bonnet shapes
That hooded scowling brows of cursing men,
Who laid their bets on this bird, and on that,
As, with quick panting breath and beaks agape,
They pranced, flew, fought, until the oaken bar
Seemed spattered o'er with feathers and cock blood.
At length one cock the other overthrew,
And struck quick spurs into his quivering breast
Until he died; then he, with croaking crow,
Fell, wounded, bleeding, dying by his side
Amid the applauding cheers of thirsty throats,
Soon to be slaked with liquid bets, and so
The battle ended, but the fog remained.
A rustling of silk plumes upon the bench,
Five wigs bent low, and thus great Solon spake--
"'Twas in Kilbarchan that this fight was fought,
And straight the men who prompted it were ta'en,
And jailed, and tried, and sentenced for the same;
But now they seek release, and this their plea,
That in the gracious Act which says that men
Shall not treat brutes and beasts with cruelty,
The name of "_Cock_" is absent; therefore they
Claim full exemption for their brutish deeds,
And we, vicegerents of our gentle Queen,
With spectacle on nose, must well explore
This vital point in _Cockieleerie-law_.
The illumined page of history reveals
Cock-fighting as an ancient royal sport.
The Early Greeks and Romans in their day
Found pastime sweet in setting cock on cock;
The sage Themistocles took keen delight
In battling fowls; while glorious Caesar, too,
Loved much to back his bird; and, furthermore,
Marc Antony's gamecocks did always lose
When pitted against Caesar's fiercer breed.
King Henry VIII., of sainted memory!
At Whitehall had a special cock-pit built,
Wherein his royal birds made lively sport
For gentle dames and all his merry knights.
The most accomplished scholar of his day,
Squire Roger Ascham, tutor to Queen Bess,
Much as he loved his books, loved cocks the more,
And loved them most when victors in the fight.
And last of all, that great and noble Duke,
The conqueror of Blenheim, in game birds
Found something that reminded him of self;
And thus we see the fighting instinct strong
In cocks, and other nobles of past time.
"Game cocks, we find, from earliest Cockereldom,
Delight in war, as dogs to bark and bite,
And raining blows upon each other's ribs
Do best fulfil their part of nature's plan,
Which built them slim and bade them love the fray;
And while we hope no preference here to show,--
'Tis open question, whether rearing fowls
To wring their necks, or match them in the pit,
Does more exalt the brute or sink the man.
"But here, the cocks were armed with spurs of steel,
And 'tis a subtle matter, whether they
With iron shod, or spurred with native horn,
Do deal the deadliest blows in angry fray;
And, while we have our own opinion strong!
'Tis not within our province to pronounce.
"If it be wrong with steel to prick a fowl,
What of the spurs with which hard riders goad
The bleeding sides of horses in the race,
Or in the steeplechase, or country hunt?
And what of hares in coursing run to death?
Of quivering foxes torn by yelling hounds?
Of wheeling pigeons slaughtered for a prize?
We make no mention of the common use,
Of otter hunting, grouse and pheasant drives.
And of the sport termed _noble_, where the stag
Is forced upon the guns that lay him low.
No doubt, two blacks can never make one white,
Nor multiplying blacks turn black to grey;
But if to brutalise mankind be thought amiss,
Then there are other ways, than fighting cocks.
"Still that's beside our purpose, which is this--
To scan the statute, microscope in hand,
And note if in its sweep humane, we see
A roosting place for fighting chanticleer.
And there we find, or rather fail to find,
The name of "Cock" among the saving list
Of nineteen beasts protected by the law,
Though thus the list concludes, "_and other kinds
Of animals domestic_," or like words.
Are we to find Game Cocks, domestic fowls?
Are we to hold that birds, are animals?
Our view is quite the contrary, or else
There's not a beast, bird, fish, or insect but
The term "domestic" would to them apply,
And make it penal e'en to slay a louse.
"And while, in other parts of this same Act,
We find "Cock" followed by the general phrase,
"_Or other kind of animal_," we hold
It bears not on the matter now in hand,
But only serves to show that Parliament,
When brooding, clucking, hen-like, o'er this Act,
Had Cocks well in their eye, and plainly did,
Of purpose full, omit them from the list;
And while bear-fights, bull-fights, dog-fights, and all
Vile sports and brutish cruelty to beasts,
The spirit and the letter of the law
Do quite forbid, _unanimous we hold
Cock-fighting is a lawful use of Cocks,
And finding so we liberate these men_.
"It will be said, this Statute has been read
Reversely in our sister England, where
It is the Charter of proud Chanticleer;
But what of that? It alters not our mind!
But only shews, that they, of feebler clay,
Stick not at trifles, so the end be good,
And let the heart o'erbeat the legal mind;
While we, of sterner stuff, fail not to find
Motes in the sunshine of their simple wits,
And gnats to strain out of their cups of wine;
For in the nice accomplishment and use
Of splitting hairs, and weighing feathers small,
Of riddling wisdom from a peck of words,
We are more skilled, more subtle, more profound
Than our legal brethren of the South."
Whereat five horse-hair wigs again bowed down
In low obeisance to the mighty sage,
And straight the Court was cleared of cocks and men.
Fatal Links.
BY ERNEST H. RANN.
A consideration of the detection of crime brings forcibly to the mind the
fact that officers of law have frequently to depend for success on the
accidental discovery of the most trifling items and incidents. Conversely
the criminal section of the community who prey on the weakness or folly of
their neighbours have to fear not only a knowledge of their principal
movements, but the discovery of the connecting link which shall complete
the chain of evidence against them. The deepest laid plot, the most
cunning scheme, contains a flaw which may be fatal to their operations, to
their liberty, and even their life, a flaw which no amount of previous
examination may detect, a weakness which can rarely be adequately guarded
against. Justice and the vindication of the law, therefore, depend largely
on a proper regard being paid to minor occurrences, which at first sight
would seem to have no bearing whatever on the particular case under
consideration. The history of crime contains numberless instances where
the criminal has been brought to justice through one or other of these
causes--the presence of particular hairs or threads on his clothing or on
the weapon used, the direction of certain cuts on the body of his victim,
the possession of trifling articles. At other times dreams have played no
inconsiderable part in the vindication of the law, which has also been
aided by supernatural visitants, or by the self-consciousness of the
criminal.
It would be impossible in a short article like the present to offer a full
list of cases of this description, but a few typical instances may be
taken with the object of showing how crimes, long hidden, have been
discovered in the most remarkable manner. Probably the best example
occurred at Augsburg, in 1821. A woman named Maria Anna Holzmann lived in
a house in the town belonging to one Sticht. Her means only permitted her
to occupy a few of the rooms, and the remaining parts of the premises were
let to lodgers, among whom were George Rauschmaier and Joseph Steiner. On
Good Friday, April 20th, Holzmann disappeared. She had not given notice
of her intended departure, and nothing was known of it until some days
later when Rauschmaier and Steiner also left the premises, saying that
their landlady had previously quitted the house, leaving them in
possession of her keys. This information, however, was not given to the
police until May 17th. In the meantime Holzmann's relatives had become
apprehensive of her safety, and being reluctantly forced to the conclusion
that foul play had befallen her, they decided to take an inventory of her
property, as it was known that, although in humble circumstances, the
woman had managed by care and economy to amass considerable wealth. It was
found, however, that the greater part of her money and other valuables
were missing.
In spite of active enquiries no further action of importance in the matter
was possible until the following January, when Theresa Belter, a
washerwoman who also lived in the house, announced that she had found a
thigh of a human body hidden in the loft. Further investigations revealed
a leg and the other thigh in a heap of rubbish in a corner of the room,
and between the chimney and the roof, a trunk without head or limbs was
discovered. An old gown and a petticoat, identified as portions of the
dress of Holzmann, were also brought to light, while search in
Rauschmaier's room disclosed other parts of a woman's body. The head was
missing, but when news of the unmistakeable crime was noised abroad, a
neighbouring manufacturer stated that during the preceding year he had
found a skull, still bearing portions of flesh and hair, in his factory
weir, but had not considered the "find" worthy of preservation.
There could be no doubt that Maria Anna Holzmann had been murdered, and
the whole machinery of the law was put in motion to bring the criminals to
justice. Suspicion fastened itself strongly upon the two men, Rauschmaier
and Steiner, but actual evidence against them, or indeed against anyone,
was of the scantiest description until the separate pieces of the woman's
body were placed together. While the left arm was being examined, a brass
ring fell out of the bend of the elbow, whence it had evidently slipped
from the finger of the murderer. Whose was the ring? then became the all
important question. Rauschmaier was arrested and confessed that he had
stolen and pawned several articles of Holzmann's property, but he sternly
denied having committed the murder. The property, including a pair of
ear-rings, had been recovered from the pawnbroker's, and these, with the
brass ring, were laid before the accused. He had not wit enough to discern
the trap laid for him, and immediately on seeing the ornaments, he
exclaimed "The ear-rings and the gold and brass rings are mine. The brass
ring I always wore until within four or five weeks after Easter, since
when I have worn gold ones. The brass ring fits the little finger of my
left hand; it slips on and off with ease." This foolish statement, and the
place of the discovery of the ring, proved conclusively that Rauschmaier
was the murderer of the unfortunate Holzmann. Subsequently he made full
confession of the crime, stating that the brass ring must have slipped off
while he was cutting up the body. He paid the penalty of his sins with
death.
The "Greenacre" case, which occurred in 1836, was similar to the foregoing
in many of its details. In that year, portions of the mutilated trunk of
an old woman named Brown were found in a house in Edgeware Road, wrapped
in old rags and sacking. Subsequently the head was discovered in Regent's
Canal, and the limbs in a drain in the neighbourhood of Camberwell.
Comparison between the various portions left no doubt as to the identity
of the deceased, and James Greenacre, whom Brown intended to marry, and to
whose house she had gone with all her property, was accused of the murder.
A woman named Gale with whom he lived was also charged with complicity in
the deed. Once more suspicion, however strong, was insufficient to bring
the crime right home to the accused, but the discovery, among Greenacre's
property, of some rags corresponding with the pieces covering the
mutilated remains, together with a few articles belonging to Brown, turned
suspicion into actual proof. Greenacre was condemned to death, and his
companion sentenced to transportation for life.
The murder of William Begbie, at Edinburgh, is a remarkable case of the
manner in which the author of a crime may remain long hidden, and only
then be discovered by accident. Begbie was a bank porter, and on November
30th, 1806, he was employed to carry a parcel of notes, worth about
L4,000, to one of the bank's customers. On his way he had to pass through
a narrow, dark, and tortuous entry, and there he was brutally murdered and
the notes were stolen. Although a knife, of a particular pattern, was
left in the body, the murderer remained at large, and no clue to the
terrible crime could be unearthed. Nine months later the bundle of notes,
untouched, was found hidden in a wall, but long years passed before the
mystery was completely solved. In 1822 a Bow Street runner named Denovan,
while visiting Leith, chanced to fall into conversation with a sailor
lately returned from captivity among the French. Speaking of old times the
mariner accidentally mentioned that coming ashore one morning he had
noticed a man like William Begbie, followed by a person dressed in black
and of respectable demeanour. He lost sight of them for a few moments, but
later on he was surprised to see the man in black rush out of the narrow
entry with a bundle under his arm. On the next day he heard of the murder,
and feeling confidant that he could throw light on the crime, he informed
the mate of his vessel of what he had seen. Permission to go ashore was,
however, refused. The vessel sailed, was captured by the French, and the
sailor witness did not recover his liberty for fifteen years. Denovan set
to work with this important clue, and enquiries proved that the man in
black was no other than a notorious criminal named Mackoul, who had lived
in Edinburgh in 1806. The law had claimed its own, however, previous to
the sailor's disclosures. In 1820 Mackoul had suffered death for robbery;
still, though he was beyond punishment for his old crime in Edinburgh, it
was satisfactory to know that the mystery of the bank porter's death had
at last been solved.