Law -- England; Poor -- England; Poor laws -- England; Working class -- England
Magistrates and others do not sufficiently study this. Patriotic county
officials loudly deny what everyone who reads the Judicial Statistics
knows to be true. In discussing the Edalji case I pointed out that to
anyone who studied the history of crime it was far more likely that such
crime would be committed by a native of the county than by a gentleman of
Parsee descent. This seemed to annoy some ardent Staffordshire folk, but
there is no reason why it should. Killing and maiming the cattle of others
is a very ancient pursuit and has only recently been regarded as criminal.
The wicked man in the Bible was often threatened with the destruction of
his cattle. No doubt the righteous man was encouraged thereby to take upon
himself the duty of avenging his wrongs by destroying his wicked
neighbour's cattle, and the wicked neighbour, believing himself to be the
righteous one, retaliated in kind. Certain it is that in border countries
we always read of cattle raiding and killing and maiming, and perhaps one
reason why Staffordshire is old fashioned in the cattle-maiming business
is that it was a border country, and in the good old days the lords and
squires raided cattle and destroyed their neighbour's farms and
boundaries, and these antiquated habits remain with some as natural
instincts of revenge.
In early days such acts were not considered criminal. The only malicious
injury to property known to the English common law as a crime was arson.
It was not until the time of Henry VIII. (37 Hen. VIII., c. 6) that it was
discovered that there were "divers sundry malicious and curious persons,
being men of evil and perverse disposition and seduced by the instigation
of the devil, who, to damnify the king's true subjects went about burning
frames of timber ready to be set up and edified for houses," and broke
down dams and moats or cut away lead pipes, or barked apple trees, or cut
out beasts' tongues, which seems a very ancient and horrible form of
maiming cattle. The penalty for these latter offences was the inadequate
fine of ten pounds.
In 1722 came the Black Act which made it felony without benefit of clergy
to "unlawfully or maliciously kill, maim, or wound any cattle." In 1861 a
Malicious Damage Act (24 & 25 Vict. c. 97) was passed, codifying all the
law relating to such offences, and that is the Act under which Mr. Edalji
was indicted.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account