This brings us to the last of the pleas which we have proposed to treat upon under this head. The question of Personal Identity may arise in many ways; as whether a child claiming an inheritance is the same that he pretends, or is pretended to be, as in the _Douglas_ or _Anglesea_ causes; (vide ante) whether a prisoner is actually the person who committed a particular offence, when the jury tries the fact and the identity together; and where a prisoner after conviction escapes and is retaken, whether he is the same that was convicted.[103] The former cases we have noticed under the heads of Supposititious Children, vol. i, p. 220, warning our readers not to be too hasty in determining identity upon mere resemblance.[104] And in the last case “a jury shall be impanneled to try the collateral issue, namely, the identity of his person; and not whether guilty or innocent; for that has been decided before. And in these collateral issues the trial shall be _instanter_, and no time allowed the prisoner to make his defence or produce his witnesses, unless he will make oath that he is not the person attainted: (_Fors. C. L._ 41) neither shall any peremptory challenges of the jury be allowed the prisoner; though formerly such challenges were held to be allowable, whenever a man’s life was in question.” _4 Bl. Com._ 396. And query whether this is not the better doctrine; the case of _Mr. Radcliffe_, brother of _Lord Derwentwater_, (_Fors. C. L._ 41) in which the contrary was held, was for high treason shortly after the rebellion of 1745; and as _Sir M. Forster_ says, speaking of _Monmouth’s_ attainder, “that was a time of great heat and violence, and few things then done ought to be drawn into example.” _Ib._ 44. There does not appear to be any good reason why a prisoner should not have all the safeguards on a collateral issue or inquest of office, which are allowed on the main issue; especially when, as in the present instance, his life depends upon the question. OF PUNISHMENTS.