"There's more than one at Oxford would like to see you, Ermine, and Stephen too," said Leuesa. "Mother Isel would, and Derette," was Ermine's answer. "I am not so sure of any one else." "I am sure of one else," interpolated Stephen. "It would be a perfect windfall to Anania, for she'd get talk out of it for nine times nine days. But would it be safe, think you?" "Why not?" answered Roscius. "The Earl has nought against you, has he?" "Oh no, he has nought against me; I settled every thing with him--went back on purpose to do so. I was thinking of Ermine. The Bishop is not the same [Note 2], but for aught I know, the sumners are." "Only one of them: Malger went to Lincoln some two years back." "Well, I should be glad not to meet that villain," said Stephen. "You'll not meet him. Then as to the other matter, what could they do to her? The sentence was carried out. You can't execute a man twice." "That's a point that does not generally rise for decision. But you see she got taken in, and that was forbidden. They were never meant to survive it, and she did." "I don't believe any penalty could fall on her," said Roscius. "But if you like, I'll ask my cousin, who is a lawyer, what the law has to say on that matter." "Then don't mention Ermine's name." "I'll mention nobody's name. I shall only say that I and a friend of mine were having a chat, and talking of one thing and another, we fell a-wondering what would happen if a man were to survive a punishment intended to kill him." "That might serve. I don't mind if you do." The law, in 1174, was much more dependent on the personal will of the sovereign than it is now. The lawyer looked a little doubtful when asked the question. "Why," said he, "if the prisoner had survived by apparent miracle, the chances are that he would be pardoned, as the probability would be that his innocence was thus proved by visitation of God. I once knew of such a case, where a woman was accused of murdering her husband; she held her mute of malice at her trial, and was adjudged to suffer _peine forte et dure_." When a prisoner refused to plead, he was held to be "mute of malice." The _peine forte et dure_, which was the recognised punishment for this misdemeanour, was practically starvation to death. In earlier days it seems to have been pure starvation; but at a later period, the more refined torture was substituted of allowing the unhappy man on alternate days three mouthfuls of bread with no liquid, and three sips of water with no food, for a term which the sufferer could not be expected to survive. At a later time again, this was exchanged for heavyweights, under which he was pressed to death.