The law does not appear to have made any sufficient provision for the (not improbable) contingency of a highly infectious disorder breaking out in any prison, yet it is evidently unjust that a prisoner for a debt of _one shilling!_ or any other sum, should be exposed to the hazard of his life by remaining in contact with the infected, (see _Buxton’s_ Inquiry.) Formerly the writ of _Habeas Corpus_ was granted on such occasions, but abuses having arisen it was ultimately referred to the judges to consider the legality of this application of the writ, who decided against it; adding, however, that in case of great infection some house in some good town might be assigned for the warden of the Fleet, and the like for the marshal of the King’s Bench, where they might keep their prisoners _sub arcta et salva custodia_. _Hutt._ 129. But query, how far this course would be applicable to other prisons? Footnote 101: The learned _Jacob Bryant_ lost his life from mortification in his leg, originating in the slight circumstance of a rasure against a chair, in the act of reaching a book from a shelf. Footnote 102: See “An account of a case of recovery, after an extraordinary accident, by which the shaft of a chaise had been forced through the thorax.” by William Maiden; London, 1812. Footnote 103: Memoires de l’Acad. Royale. 1705. Footnote 104: Med. Polit. P. 1. C. 1. Footnote 105: _Hebenstreit_ observes that if a man is wounded by two different persons, one of whom stabs in the side, the other in the belly, it becomes necessary after death to ascertain of which wound the deceased died, in order that the actual murderer may be punished. By the law of England this question can never arise. Footnote 106: The bites of venomous animals will be considered under the head of Poisons. Footnote 107: This trial is the more remarkable as forming one of the numerous persecutions to which the prisoner claimant of the Annesley Peerage was subjected by the rancour of his opponent; for the other proceedings _see State Trials_. Footnote 108: Poisoning, in war, is even considered by the law of nations as more odious than assassination, of this _Grotius_ (lib. iii. c. 4.) has enlarged. It was a maxim of the Roman senate, that war was to be carried on by arms, and not by poison (_Aul. Gell. Nat. Altico._ lib. iii. c. 8.). Even _Tiberius_ rejected the proposal made by the Prince of the Catti, that if poison was sent to him, he would destroy _Arminius_; he received for answer, that the Roman people chastised their enemies by open force, without having recourse to wicked practices and secret machinations (_Val. Max._ 1. iv. c. 5.) Footnote 109: