[28] III. Reeve’s History English Law, p. 197. [29] IV. Reeve’s History English Law, pp. 458, 463. [30] IV. Reeve’s History English Law, p. 466. [31] IV. Reeve’s History English Law, p. 468. [32] IV. Reeve’s History English Law, p. 468. [33] V. Reeve’s History English Law, p. 346. [34] American Com. Kentucky, p. 407. [35] IV. Reeve’s History English Law, pp. 458, 462; Keilw. 180b, to 185b. [36] Keilw. 180b, to 185b; IV. Reeve’s History English Law, pp. 458, 462. [37] IV. Reeve’s History English Law, p. 463. [38] This original old musty indictment was recently unearthed at the old Sessions House, in London, by a representative of the London Globe and was delivered to the Council of Middlesex county for preservation. [39] It is reported that the wily Ben really bribed the jailer to use cold steel in branding him, as no marks were found on his hand after his death. (London Globe, April, 1910.) [40] American Commonwealth, Massachusetts; Knapp’s “Sketches of Eminent Lawyers,” etc. [41] 2 Cranch, C. C. 137. [42] 4 Cranch, C. C. 118. [43] State vs. Gray, 5 No. Car. (1 Murph.) 147. [44] 11 No. Car. 4 Hawks. 187. And see, also, State vs. Kearney, 8 No. Car. 1 Hawks. 53. [45] State vs. Bosse, 8 Rich. Law. 276. [46] 24 No. Car. 2 Ired. 257. [47] Suab. 372. [48] State vs. Bosse, 8 Rich. Law. 276. [49] Fuller vs. State. 1 Blatchf. 63; State vs. Bilansky, 3 Minn. 246; 1 Gil. 169. [50] Commonwealth vs. Posey, 4 Coll. 109; 2 Am. Dec. 560. [51] Commonwealth vs. Stewart, 1 Va. Cas. 114. [52] American Com. Ky. p. 407. Ch. 21. That Thackeray was thoroughly familiar with the law governing the Benefit of Clergy and the nature of the punishment inflicted on the culprit pleading guilty of an offense clergyable at common law, is evidenced by his presentation of the plea in favor of Lord Mohun, the Earl of Warwick, Col. Westbury and Henry Esmond, in his interesting plot, in “Henry Esmond.” CHAPTER IX. PRIVILEGE OF SANCTUARY. The privilege of sanctuary, sometimes called the privilege of asylum, was the exemption afforded criminals, taking refuge in certain consecrated places, from the ordinary operation of the law of arrest. The institution is no doubt older than the time of Moses and we find frequent references to it in the early books of the Bible. In the book of Exodus the old Mosaic law was stated to be: “He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death,” but in the same book, it is written: “And if a man lie not in wait, but God deliver him into his hand; then I will appoint thee a place whither he shall flee.” Moses’ law thus distinguished between murder on malice aforethought and mere manslaughter, as we call it and according to the ancient law of the Israelites, there were cities of refuge to which a felon might flee, who killed a man unawares.