Legal Lore Part 7

Commonwealth Law and Lawyers.

EDWARD PEAc.o.c.k, 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 cla.s.s, 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 cla.s.s 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 s.h.i.+p-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 s.h.i.+p-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--n.o.bles 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 a.s.sured. 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 s.h.i.+llings 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 a.s.sa.s.sin, 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 amba.s.sador 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 amba.s.sador. 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 a.s.sisted 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 pa.s.sion 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 a.s.sured 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 pa.s.sed, forbidding any goods to be imported into England, except in English s.h.i.+ps, or in the s.h.i.+ps 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.

In no sketch however brief of the lawyers of this disturbed time, can the name of William Prynne be entirely pa.s.sed 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 amus.e.m.e.nts 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 n.o.ble 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 doc.u.ments 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 cla.s.ses 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 pa.s.sions were fanned by listening to the popular preachers. Not content with interfering with the service-book, various acts were pa.s.sed 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.

c.o.c.k-Fighting in Scotland.

It is highly probable that the Romans introduced c.o.c.k-fighting into this country. It is generally believed that the sport was made popular by Themistocles. On one occasion he saw two c.o.c.ks 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-c.o.c.ks 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 c.o.c.ks to the schools, to turn the schoolrooms into c.o.c.kpits, the masters and pupils spending the morning witnessing the birds fighting.

Old town accounts contain many references to this custom, for example at Congleton, Ches.h.i.+re, is the following item:--

"1601. Payd John Wagge for dressynge the schoolhouse at the great [Congleton] c.o.c.kfyghte." 0 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 amus.e.m.e.nt 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 c.o.c.k-fight, preceded by two holidays and a half, during which the boys occupied themselves in collecting and bringing up the c.o.c.ks. 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 pa.s.sed, 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 c.o.c.k-pit." Miller at some length denounces the cruel sport.

In England c.o.c.k-fighting is prohibited by statute 12 and 13 Vict. 3, 92, under which every person who shall in any manner encourage, aid, or a.s.sist at the fighting or baiting of any bull, bear, badger, dog, c.o.c.k, or other animal, shall forfeit and pay a penalty not exceeding 5 for every such offence. In Scotland it was not illegal until quite recently. An act was pa.s.sed 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-c.o.c.k.

The sport became popular and the law could not touch those that took part in the cruel amus.e.m.e.nt. It was felt to be a national scandal, and to prevent it, a short statute was pa.s.sed 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-c.o.c.k, 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 c.o.c.k-fighting the subject of a clever poem.

c.o.c.kIELEERIE-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 c.o.c.ks; 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 c.o.c.ks, Game c.o.c.ks, 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 c.o.c.k-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 c.o.c.k blood.

At length one c.o.c.k 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 "_c.o.c.k_" 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 _c.o.c.kieleerie-law_.

The illumined page of history reveals c.o.c.k-fighting as an ancient royal sport.

The Early Greeks and Romans in their day Found pastime sweet in setting c.o.c.k on c.o.c.k; The sage Themistocles took keen delight In battling fowls; while glorious Caesar, too, Loved much to back his bird; and, furthermore, Marc Antony's gamec.o.c.ks did always lose When pitted against Caesar's fiercer breed.

King Henry VIII., of sainted memory!

At Whitehall had a special c.o.c.k-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 c.o.c.ks the more, And loved them most when victors in the fight.

And last of all, that great and n.o.ble Duke, The conqueror of Blenheim, in game birds Found something that reminded him of self; And thus we see the fighting instinct strong In c.o.c.ks, and other n.o.bles of past time.

"Game c.o.c.ks, we find, from earliest c.o.c.kereldom, 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 c.o.c.ks 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 p.r.o.nounce.

"If it be wrong with steel to p.r.i.c.k 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 _n.o.ble_, 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 c.o.c.ks.

"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 "c.o.c.k" 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 c.o.c.ks, 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 "c.o.c.k" 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 c.o.c.ks 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 c.o.c.k-fighting is a lawful use of c.o.c.ks, 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 suns.h.i.+ne 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 c.o.c.ks and men.