The crime which, in legal phrase, is termed that of Læse Majesty, as the death of the King, or a sedition moved in the Realm, or Army[33]—the fraudulent concealment of Treasure-trove—The Plea concerning the breaking of the King’s peace—Homicide—Burning—Robbery—Rape—the crime of Falsifying,[34] and such other Pleas as are of a similar nature.[35] These crimes are either punished capitally, or with loss of Member.[36] We must, however, except the crime of Theft, which belongs to the Sheriffs of Counties, and is discussed and determined in the County Courts.[37] It also appertains to Sheriffs, in case of neglect on the part of Lords of Franchise, to take cognizance of Scuffles,[38] blows, and wounds, unless the Accuser subjoin to his charge, that the offence was committed against the King’s Peace.[39] [Footnote 33: “The Committers of these Crimes,” says the Regiam Majestatem, “may be punished not only for any fact or deed, but also for the intent and purpose.” (Reg. Maj. L. 1. c. 1.)] [Footnote 34: _Crimen falsi_, an expression borrowed from the Civil Law. (Vide Justin. Inst. 4. 18. 7. &c.) Our author explains its import, L. 14. c. 7.] [Footnote 35: Cap. 2. Hengham Magna, c. 2. p. 7. LL. Canuti R. secul. c. 61. et Somneri Gloss. in voce _emenda_. (Al. MS.) The Law of Canute alluded to, is in these words: _Irruptio in domum et incendium et furtum manifestum et cædes publica et domini proditio juxta leges humanas sunt inexpiabilia._ (Vide LL. Anglo-Saxon. Ed. Wilkins, p. 143.)] [Footnote 36: Among the Laws of Canute, are some inflicting the punishment of loss of members. (LL. Canuti, c. 15. 33. &c.) From hence it has been inferred, that Canute first introduced this species of punishment into England. However that may be, the Conqueror’s Law forms too remarkable a feature in his Legislation to be passed over in silence. It forbids the punishments of death and hanging for any crime, but orders, that the eyes of the offenders should be plucked out, or their feet or hands &c. amputated, _ita quod truncus vivus remaneat in signum proditionis et nequitiæ suæ_!! (LL. Gul. Conq. p. 218. Ed. Wilkins.)] [Footnote 37: “Theft and manslaughter,” says the Regiam Majestatem, “belong to the Sheriff when any certain accuser appears: not so when those crimes are taken up by _dittay_.” (c. 1. L. 1.) “The Sheriff in the Tourn (for that is to be intended) held plea of Theft,” says Lord Coke. But this part of his jurisdiction was taken away by 17. c. Mag. Cart. (Vide 2 Inst. 30-1.)]