In what hatered and perpetuall reproche aught they to be that, corrupted with pestilenciall auarice or ambicion, betraieth their maisters, or any other that trusteth them? what monstrus persones haue we radde and herde of, whiche for the inordinate and deuclisshe appetite to raigne, haue mooste tyrannously slayne the children, nat onely of their soueraigne lordes, but also of their owne naturall bretherne, committed unto their gouernaunce? Of whome purposely I leaue at this tyme to wryte, to the intent that the moste cursed remembraunce of them shall nat consume the tyme that the well disposed reder mought occupie in examples of vertue.

This one thinge I wolde were remembred, that by the iuste prouidence of god, disloyalte or treason seldome escapeth great vengeaunce, all be it that it be pretended for a necessary purpose. Example we haue of Brutus and Cassius, two noble

Quod si non audes me imitare ipsum, assumpto in humerò infantulo, sicut erat staturâ sublimi, ex loco superiore, exclamavit, "Joannes est Rex ! dicite omnes Rex Joannes!" Quam vocem admirati universi et ipsi subsecuti sunt, clamantes identidem Rex Joannes! Ita Ferdinandus hâc consilii celeritate, non dato hominibus spatio deliberandi, rapuit eorum excussitque judicium. At tacitè defuncto regi exprobravit inconsultam suspitionem, qui talem fratrem, se quoque meliorem, non bellè tractasset: ac nequid de animo ejus in dubium revocari queat, omne reliquum vitæ tempus declarat Ferdinandum non aliter perseverasse quàm incœperat.' —Hist. Ferdin. I. Regis Aragoniæ, fo. 11b, ed. 1521. Lucius Marineus, the Sicilian historian, tells the story more briefly in his History of the Kings of Aragon, lib. v. fo. 39, ed. 1509. Neither of these writers mentions the circumstance of the king putting on his robe, which is a mistake of Sir Thomas Elyot, clearly due to his misapprehension of the language of Pontanus, who states that the child when introduced by Ferdinand was already dressed in royal attire, 'prodiit in medium infantulum regio ornatum cultu.'

• Allusion is probably here made to the death of Prince Arthur in 1202, inasmuch as report,' says Lingard, ascribed his fate to the dagger of his uncle.'— Hist. of Eng. vol. ii. p. 303. And undoubtedly to the murder of his two nephews by Richard III. in 1483, to whose advice, if not to whose dagger, was also attributed the murder of Henry VI. in 1471.

The warning here given seems almost superfluous, for at this time 'the laws of treason were multiplied beyond all former precedent . . . By one statute, for instance, it was declared treason to assert the validity of the king's marriage, either with Catherine of Arragon or Anne Boleyn. By another it was treason to say anything to the disparagement or slander of the Princesses Mary and Elizabeth, and to call them spurious would have been construed to their slander. Nor would

Romaynes, and men of excellent vertues," whiche, pretendinge an honorable zeale to the libertie and commune weale of their citie, slewe Julius Cesar (who trusted them moste of all other) for that he usurped to haue the perpetuall dominion of the empire, supposinge thereby to haue brought the senate and people to their pŕistinate libertie. But it dyd nat so succede to their purpose. But by the dethe of so noble a prince hapned confusion and ciuile batayles. And bothe Brutus and Cassius, after longe warres vainquisshed by Octauian, néuewe and hiere unto Cesar, at the last falling in to extreme desperation, slewe them selfes. A worthy and conuenient vengeaunce for the murder of so noble and valyaunt a prince.

even silence, with regard to these points, have saved a person from such penalties; for, by the former statute, whoever refused to answer upon oath to any point contained in that act, became liable to the pains of treason. The king needed only propose to any one a question, with regard to the legality of either of his first marriages; if the person were silent, he was a traitor by law; if he answered either in the negative or in the affirmative, he was no less a traitor.'-De Lolme, The Eng. Const. vol. i. pp. 164, 165, ed. 1838.

Sir Thos. Elyot of course accepted Plutarch's account, who has written,' says Mr. George Long, 'a very partial life of the liberator,' and this opinion seems to be shared by other modern writers. Thus Dr. Liddell holds that Brutus was not a patriot, unless devotion to the party of the Senate be patriotism. Towards the Provincials he was a true Roman, harsh and oppressive . . . Cicero was shocked at the usurious interest he demanded for his money from the wretched Asiatics, and at the cruel way in which he extorted payment from his debtors. . . . In comparison with Cassius, he was humane and generous; but in almost every respect his character is contrasted for the worse with that of the great man, from whom he accepted favours, and then became his murderer.'-Hist. of Rome, vol. ii. p. 501, ed. 1855.

b

'Caesar's death,' says Mr. George Long, as he himself predicted, was the beginning of fresh troubles for Rome, and civil war soon broke out again. All the conspirators came to a violent death; and in the next year Cicero perished by the hands of base assassins as Cæsar had died, over whose death Cicero ignobly exulted.'—Decline of Rom. Republic, vol. v. p. 465, ed. 1874.

с

So says Bishop Hooper in a sermon on Rom. xiii. printed at Worcester in 1551: The sedition and treason redounded always to the destruction of the people at length; as it is to be seen in Absalom, Ahitophel, Catiline, Brutus, Cassius, and other, that destroyed not only themselves, but also the people, by such treason and disobedience against the ordinance and appointment of God.'-Later Writings, p. 105, ed. 1852. Parker Soc.

Many other lyke examples do remayne as well in writynge as in late remembraunce, whiche I passe ouer for this tyme.

CHAPTER VII.

Of promise and couenant.

CONCERNYNGE that parte of fidelitie which concerneth the kepynge of promise or couenauntes experience declareth howe litle it is nowe had in regarde; to the notable rebuke of all us whiche do professe Christes religion. Considerynge that the Turkes and Sarazens haue us therfore in contempt and deri

a Even in the author's own time, however, other writers gave a very different account. Thus Sir Anthony Sherley, who travelled in Turkey in the sixteenth century, speaking from personal experience of the manners and customs of the Turks, says: "For their breach of promise, they hold it an high and commendable vertue; for they say, if a man speake what hee thinketh, his purposes will be preuented.'-Travels, ed. 1607. And a celebrated French traveller, Nicolas de Nicolay, who visited Turkey in the middle of the same century, says of the Emirs, or those who were reputed to be of the race of Mahomet: They are so mischieuous and unhappy, that for money they wil make no conscience to beare such false witnes, such as ye wil haue them and specially if he be a Jewe or a Christian, unto whom they are mortal enimies. . . And for that they are of most peruerse and abhominable nature, diuers amongest these barbarous and rusticall people are constrayned, more for the feare which they haue of their false witnessing then for the holinesse which they know in them, to beare unto them greate honour and reuerence.'-Navigations into Turkie, p. 108, ed. 1585. A writer in the early part of the seventeenth century, describing the state of Turkey at that time, says, 'Justice in its common course is laid aside, and it's very rare when any Lawsuit is depending, but bargains are made for the sentence, and he hath most right who hath most money to make him rectus in curiâ and advance his cause. And it is the common course for both parties at variance, before they appear together in the judge's presence, to apply themselves singly to him, and try whose present has the most temptation in it; and 'tis no wonder if corrupt men exercise this kind of trafficking with justice, for having before bought the office, they must of consequence, tell the truth. Add hereunto the facility of the Turks, for the least kind of hire, to bear false witness any case; especially, and that with a word, when the least controversy happens between a Christian and a Turk, and then the pretence is for the Mussulmanleck, as they call it. The cause is religious, and hallows all falseness and forgery in the testimony.'-Hist. of the Turks, vol. iii. part 2, p. 30,

sion, they hauinge fidelite of promise aboue all thinge in reuerence. [Ina so moche as in their contractes they seldome use any bonde or othe. But, as I haue herde reported of men borne in those partes, after the mutuall consent of the parties, the bargaynour, or he that dothe promise, toucheth the grounde with his hande, and after layeth it on his hedde, as it were that he vouched all the worlde to bere wytnesse." But by this litle ceremonye he is so bounden, that if he be founden to breke touche willyngly, he is without any redemption condempned unto the pale, that is, to haue a

ed. 1719. How little change has taken place in this respect will be seen by the following extract from the Blue Books of 1876: If it be proved that a Turk slew a Christian at a certain place on a certain day, he will find witnesses who will prove that on the said day he was at another place at any distance from that where the crime was committed, and they will confirm their evidence by an oath on the Kitab (Koran). Then the scene suddenly changes, and severe penalties are incurred by the Giaour calumniators who have dared to profane the sanctuary of the courts with base lies and aspersions to the injury of an innocent MussulThen the remarks and the just anger of the Cadi and Medjlis echo throughout the city, and those poor fellows are at once thrown manacled into prison, fined, and rendered infamous for ever.'-Mac Coll, The Eastern Question, p. 29, ed. 1877.

man.

The passage within brackets is omitted in all the subsequent editions.

There seems a striking resemblance in this ceremony to the ancient form of taking an oath observed by the Romans, and which is called by Polybius Per Jovem Lapidem.'-See post, p. 252.

с

Though nearly three centuries and a half have elapsed since the passage in the text was written, this horrible method of torture has maintained its place as one of the recognised institutions of Turkey down to the present moment. In Mr. Kinglake's Eothen, describing his travels in that country in 1844, a picture is given of two robbers so impaled, and the author says, 'The poor fellows had been impaled upon high poles, and so propped up by the transverse spokes beneath them, that their skeletons, clothed with some white wax-like remains of flesh, still sat up lolling in the sunshine, and listlessly stared without eyes.'—P. 32, ed. 1844. The sensation created in England by Mr. Mac Coll's letter in the Times of Sept. 28, 1876, describing an instance of impalement of which he and Canon Liddon had been eye-witnesses is too recent to be forgotten. Shortly after the publication of this letter an affidavit sent to Dr. Liddon by Dr. Sandwith from Belgrade was published in the London papers, in which the deponent, Milan Paulovitch, a native of Novo Varosh, in Stara Serbia, stated that he had seen with his own eyes one of his fellow countrymen fastened to a stake: 'It was last year (1875), in the second half of the month of August, some days after the Feast of the Nativity of

longe stake thrast in at the secrete partes of his body, whereon he shall abide dyenge by a longe space. For feare of the which moste terrible execution, seldome any man under the Turkes dominion breketh his promise. But what hope is there to haue fidelitic well kept amonge us in promises and bargaynes, whan for the breache therof is prouided no punisshement," nor yet notorious rebuke; sauinge if it be tried by accion, suche praty damages as the iury shall assese, whiche perchaunce dayly practiseth semblable lightnes of purpose."

the Mother of God, that I have seen on the hill called Tikva, quite near to Novo Varosh, the well-known Servian Slovitch, of the village of Kratova, in Stara Serbia, fastened to a stake. The Turks had taken him some days before on this same hill, and immediately afterwards they put him on a stake. I saw him there two days afterwards, and then he was dead; but how long on the stake I cannot tell. The stake entered his body at the bottom and came out at behind his neck, near the occiput. A crowd of people saw with me this sad sight.'-The Eastern Question, p. 371. Mr. Mac Coll adds that the stakes (which are represented in Eothen) are exactly similar, length and all, to those which I saw on the banks of the Save, except that only one of the latter had a transverse spoke.'-P. 363.

So it is said in Doctor and Student, which was written about this time, 'If two men have a wood ioyntly, and the one of them sellyth the wood and kepyth al the money hollye to hymselfe, in this case his felowe shall haue no remedye agaynst hym by the lawe; for as they, when they toke the wood ioyntly, put eche other in truste, and were contentyd to occupy togyther, so the lawe sufferyth them to order the profyttes therof accordynge to the truste that eche of them put other in. And yet yf one toke all the profyttes he is bounde in conscyence to restore the halfe to his felowe; for as the lawe gyueth hym ryght onlye to the halfe lande, so it gyueth hym ryght onlye in consequence to the half profyttes. And yet neuertheles it can not be sayd in that case that the lawe is agaynst conscyence, for the lawe neyther wylleth ne commaundyth that one shuld take all the profyttes, but leuythe it to theyr conscyence, so that no defaute can be founde in the lawe, but in hym that takyth all the profyttes to hymselfe maye be assygned defaute, whiche he is bounde in conscyence to reforme yf he will saue his soule, though he can not be compellyd therto by the lawe.'-Fo. xliv. ed. 1531. But the grievance was even still worse, for the same authority tells us that ‘yf a man wage his lawe untrulye in an accyon of dette upon a contracte in the kynges court, yet he shall not be suyd for that periurye in the spyrituall courte, and yet no remedye lyeth for that periurye in the kynges court.'-The. 2nd Dyal. cap. xxiv. ed. 1531.

That great corruption was employed in selecting the jury panel at this time is evident from the fact that in 1543 an act was passed, entitled, An Acte concerninge thapparaunce of Jurors in the Nisi Prius,' the preamble of which complains of the delay arising in the trial of actions by reason of mayntenance,