Westminster Hall, on the 3rd of May, | a phrase not unfrequently occurring in 1253. The transaction was made matter of public record, and is preserved in the great collection of national documents called Rymer's Fœdera. But besides these general bannings, particular persons who escaped from justice or who opposed themselves to the sentence of the church, were sometimes banned, or placed under a ban. In the history of English affairs one of the most remarkable instances of this kind is the case of Guido de Montfort. This Guido was the son of Simon de Montfort, earl of Leicester, and grandson of King John. In the troubles in England, in which his father lost his life, no one had been more active in the king's service than Henry of the Almaine, another grandson of King John, and the eldest son of Richard, that king's younger son, who had been elected King of the Almains. This young prince, being at Viterbo in Italy, and present at a religious service in one of the churches of that city, was suddenly assaulted by Guido de Montfort, and slain upon the spot. A general detestation of the crime was felt throughout Europe. Dante has placed the murderer in the Inferno :— He in God's bosom smote The heart still reverenced on the banks of Thames. The murderer escaped. Among the rumours of the time, one was that he was wandering in Norway. This man the pope placed under a ban; that is, he issued a proclamation requiring that no person should protect, counsel, or assist him; that no person should hold any intercourse with him of any kind, except, perhaps, some little might be allowed for the good of his soul; that all who harboured him should fall under an interdiet; and that if any person were bound to him by an oath of fidelity, he was absolved of the oath. This was promulgated throughout Europe. A papal bull in which the proclamation is set forth still exists among the public records in the chapter-house at Westminster. A copy of it is in Rymer's Fadera. The pope uses the very expression forbannimus: Guidonem etiam forbannimus." This species of banning is what is meant when we read of persons or cities being placed under the ban of the empire, writers on the affairs of Germany. Persons or cities who opposed themselves to the general voice of the confederation were by some public act, like those which have been described, cut off from society, and deprived of rank, title, privileges, and property. It is manifest that out of this use of the word has sprung that popular sense in which now only the word is ever heard among us, as well as the Italian bandire, French bannir, and the English bazish, [BANISHMENT.] In some parts of England, before the Reformation, an inferior species of banning was practised by the parish priests. "In the Marches of Wales," says Tyndal, in his work against the Romish Church, entitled The Obedyence of a Christen Man, 1534, "it is the manner, if any man have an ox or a cow stolen, he cometh to the curate and desireth him to curse the stealer; and he commands the parish to give him, every man, God's curse, and his; 'God's curse and mine have he,' sayeth every man in the parish." Stow relates that, in 1299, the dean of St. Paul's accursed at Paul's Cross all those who had searched in the church of St. Martin in the Fields for a hoard of gold. (London, p. 333.) Tyndal argues against the practice, as he does against the excommunicatory power in general. Yet something like it seems to be still retained in the Commination Service of the English Church. In France the popular language has not been influenced by this application of the word ban to the same extent with the English. With them the idea of publication prevails over that of denouncement, and they call the public cry by which men are called to a sale of merchandise, especially when it is done by a beat of drum, a ban. In time of war a procismation through the ranks of an army is the ban. In Artois and some parts of Picardy the public bell is called the ba cloque, or the cloche à ban, as being rung to summon people to their assemblies. When those who held of the king were summoned to attend him in his wars, they were the ban, and tenants of the secondary rank the arriere-ban; and out of this feudal use of the term arose the expressions four à ban, and moulin à ban, for a lord's bakehouse, or a lord's mill, at which the tenants of a manor (as is the case in some parts of England) were bound to bake their bread or to grind their corn. The banlieue of a city is a district around it, usually, but not always, a league on all sides, through which the proclamation of the principal judge of the place has authority. A person submitting to exile is said to keep his ban, and he who returns home without a recall breaks his ban. The French use the word as the English do, when they speak of the ban, or, as we speak and write it, the banns of marriage. This is the public proclamation which the law requires of the intention of the parties named to enter into | the marriage covenant. The law of the ancient French and of the English church is in this respect the same. The proclamation must be made on three successive Sundays in the church, during the time of the celebration of public worship, when it is presumed that the whole parish is present. The intent of this provision is twofold: 1. To prevent clandestine marriages, and marriages between parties not free from the marriage contract, parties within the prohibited degrees of kindred, minors, or excommunicates; and, 2. to save the contracting parties from precipitancy, who by this provision are compelled to suffer some weeks to pass between the consent privately given and received between themselves and the marriage. Both these objects are of importance, and ought to be secured by law. The ban, or banns, may, however, be dispensed with. In that case a licence is obtained from some person who is authorized by the bishop of the diocese to grant it, by which licence the parties are allowed to marry in the church or chapel of the parish or parochial chapelry in which either of them resides, in which marriages are wont to be celebrated, without the publication of banns. The law, however, takes care to ensure the objects for which the publication of banns was devised, by requiring oaths to be taken by the party applying for the licence, and certificates of consent of | parents or guardians in the case of minors. Special licences not only dispense with the publication of banns, but allow the parties to marry at any convenient time or place. These are granted only by the Archbishop of Canterbury, in virtue of a statute made in the twenty-fifth year of King Henry VIII., entitled an act concerning Peter-pence and dispensations. It is not known when this practice began, but it is undoubtedly very ancient. Some have supposed that it is alluded to in a passage of Tertullian. Among the innovations introduced in France during the time of the first Revolution, one was to substitute for this oral publication a written announcement of the intention, affixed to the door of the town-hall, or in some public place, during a certain time. But when it is considered how liable these bills are to be torn down or defaced, and the questions which may arise in consequence, it would seem that it is not a mode which there is much reason to prefer to that which has so long been established in Christian nations. BANISHMENT (from the French Bannissement), expulsion from any country or place by the judgment of some court or other competent authority. a The term has its root in the word ban, word of frequent use in the middle ages, which has the various significations of a public edict or interdict, a proclamation, a jurisdiction and the district within it, and a judicial punishment. Hence a person excluded from any territory by public authority was said to be banished-banmitus, in bannum missus. (Ducange, voc. Bannire, Bannum; Pasquier, Recherches, pp. 127, 732.) [BAN.] As a punishment for crimes, compulsory banishment is unknown to the ancient unwritten law of England, although voluntary exile, in order to escape other punishment, was sometimes permitted. [ABJURATION.] The crown has always exercised, in certain emergencies, the prerogative of restraining a subject from leaving the realm; but it is a known maxim of the common law, that no subject, however criminal, shall be sent out of it without his own consent or by authority of parliament. It is accordingly declared by the Great Charter, that "no freeman shall be exiled, unless by the judgment of his peers or the law of the land." There are, however, instances in our history of an irregular exercise of the power of banishing an obnoxious subject by the mere authority of the crown; and in the case of parliamentary impeachment for a misdemeanor, perpetual exile has been made part of the sentence of the House of Lords, with the assent of the king. (Sir Giles Mompesson's case, in the reign of James I., reported by Rushworth and Selden, and cited in Comyns, Digest, tit. "Parliament," 1. 44.) Aliens and Jews (formerly regarded as aliens) have, in many instances, been banished by royal proclamation. Banishment is said to have been first introduced as a punishment in the ordinary courts by a statute in the thirtyninth year of the reign of Elizabeth, by which it was enacted that "such rogues as were dangerous to the inferior people should be banished the realm;" but an instance occurs in an early statute of uncertain date (usually printed immediately after one of the eighteenth year of Edward II.), by which butchers who sell unsound meat are compelled to abjure the village or town in which the offence was committed. At a much later period the punishment now called transportation was sanctioned by the legislature, and has in other cases been made the condition on which the crown has consented to pardon a capital offence. Some towns of England used to inflict the punishment of banishment from the territory within their jurisdiction, for life and for definite periods. The extracts from the Annals of Sandwich, one of the Cinque Ports, which are printed in Boys' 'History of Sandwich,' contain many instances of this punishment in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. Banishment in some form has been prevalent in the criminal law of most nations, ancient as well as modern. Among the Greeks two kinds were in use:-1. Perpetual exile (puyń), attended with confiscation of property, but this banishment was probably never inflicted by a judicial sentence; at least among the later Athenians a sentence of perpetual banishment appears only to have been pronounced when a criminal, who was accused of wilful murder, for instance, withdrew from the country before sen tence was passed against him for the crime with which he was charged. The term phuge (puyh) was peculiarly applied to the case of a man who fled his country on a charge of wilful murder, and the property of such a person was made public. Those who had committed involuntary homicide were also obliged to leave the territory of Attica, but the name pho was not given to this withdrawal, and the property of the exile was not confiscated. Such a person might return to Attica when he had obtained the permission of some near kinsman d the deceased. (Demosthenes, Agais Aristocrates, cc. 9, 16.) 2. Ostracism, as it was called at Athens, and in some other democratical states of Greece, or Petalism, the term in use at Syra cuse, was a temporary expulsion, uta companied by loss of property, and :flicted upon persons whose influene, arising either from great wealth or em nent merit, made them the objects of popular suspicion or jealousy. Arist was ostracized from Athens for ten years not because he had done any illegal act but because people were jealous of La influence and good fame. The general name for Banishme=" among the Romans in the Imperial perv was Exsilium; and it was a penalty flicted under the Empire on conviction a Judicium Publicum, if it was alw Judicium Capitale. A Judicium Pucum was a trial in which the accused cane within the penalties of certain laws legs. and it was Capitale when the penates were either death or exsilium. This Exsilium was defined by the Jurists undr the Empire to be "aqua et ignis inter dictio," a sentence which deprived a man of two of the chief necessaries of hir (Paulus, Dig. 48, tit. 1, s. 2.) The ses tence was called Capital because it affectes. the Caput or Status of the condemned, aast he lost all civic rights. There was als Exsilium which was not accompanied by civil disabilities, and accordingly was not Capitalis: this was called Relegatio The person who was relegated was either ordered to reside in some particular spot, or he was excluded from residing in particular places; the period of relegation might be definite or indefinite. If the relegatio was perpetual, the sentence might include the loss of part of his property; but the person who was relegated retained all the privileges of a Roman citizen. The poet Ovid was relegated to Tomi on the Danube: he was not exsul. Deportation, Deportatio in insulam, was a sentence by which a criminal was carried into some small island, sometimes in chains, and always for an indefinite period. A person who was relegated went to his place of exile. The person who was deported lost his citizenship and his property, but he continued to be a free man. It was a consequence of the loss of citizenship that the relation of the patria potestas was thereby dissolved, and accordingly a father who lost his citizenship by Deportation lost his power over his children; and the effect was the same if a son was under the penalty, for the son ceased to be a Roman citizen, and consequently ceased to be in his father's power. But marriage was not dissolved either by the Interdictio or Deportatio. (Cod. 5, tit. 16, s. 24; tit. 17, s. 1.) Interdictio and Deportatio are mentioned as two separate things in the Constitutions just referred to; but in the Institutes (i. tit. 12) Deportatio only is mentioned, and it corresponds to Interdictio in the passage in Gaius (i. 128). Some further remarks will presently be made on this part of the subject. Under the early Republic Exsilium was not a punishment: it was, as the name imports, merely a change of soil. A Roman citizen could go to another state, and the citizen of such state could remove to Rome, by virtue of isopolitical rights existing between the two states. This right was called Jus Exsulandi, the Right of Exsilium as applied to the party who availed himself of it, and the Law of Exsilium when it is considered a part of the political system. The condition of the exsul in the state to which he had removed might be various; but it seems probable that he would acquire citizenship in his new state, though he might not enjoy it in all its fulness (optimo jure). By the act of removing to another state as an exsul, he divested himself of his original citizenship. A man who was awaiting his trial might withdraw before trial to another state into Exsilium-a practice which probably grew out of the Jus Exsulandi. Thus Exsilium, though a voluntary act, came to be considered as a punishment, for it was a mode of avoiding punishment; but still Banishment, as such, was not a part of the old Roman law. A practice was established under the later republic of effecting a sentence of banishment indirectly by means of the "interdictio aquæ et ignis," or with the addition of the word "tecti." (Cicero, Pro Domo, c. 30.) This sentence was either pronounced in a trial, or it was inflicted by a special lex. In the lex by which this penalty was inflicted on Cicero there was a clause which applied to any person who should give him shelter. This putting of a man under a ban, by excluding him from the main necessaries of life, had for its object to make him go beyond the limits within which he was subjected to the penalty; for the interdictio was limited to a certain distance from Rome. In Cicero's case the interdictio applied to all places within four hundred miles of Rome (Ad Attic. iii. 4). The interdictio did not prevent him from staying at Rome, but it was assumed that no man would stay in a place where he was excluded from the first necessaries of life. It has been a matter of dispute what was the legal effect of the Interdictio in the time of Cicero in the period of the Antonines, as appears from Gaius, the sentence of Interdictio when pronounced for any crime, pursuant to a penal law (ob aliquid maleficium ex lege pœnali) was followed by loss of citizenship. The penal laws were various, such as the Julia Majestatis, Julia de Adulteriis, and others. In the Oration Pro Domo, the writer labours to prove that Cicero had not lost the civitas by the Interdictio, but the tenor of the argument rather implies that the loss of civitas was a legal effect of the interdictio, and that there were particular reasons why it was not so in the case of Cicero. The whole subject however is handled in such a one-sided manner that no safe conclusion can be derived from this oration. It appears from Cicero's own letters that he considered it necessary for his safety to withdraw from Rome before the bill (rogatio) was passed by which he was put under the Interdict. He was restored by a lex passed at the Comitia Centuriata. (Ad Attic. iv. 1.) It appears from another letter (Ad Attic. iii. 23), that he had lost his civitas by the lex which inflicted the penalty of the Interdictio, but the loss of civitas may have been effected by a special clause in the Lex. The rules as to Exile under the legislation of Justinian are contained in the Digest, 48, tit. 22. The use of the word Deporto as applied to criminals who suffered the punishment of Deportatio, occurs in Tacitus (Annal. iv. 13; xiv. 45). It may be inferred however, from an expression in Terence (Phormio, v. 8, 85), that the punishment of Deportatio existed under the Republic. When Ulpian observes (Dig. 48, tit. 13, s. 3) that "the penalty of Peculation (peculatus) comprised the Interdictio, in place of which Deportatio has now succeeded," he probably means not that the Deportatio was exactly equivalent to the Interdictio, and that the name merely was changed, but that the Interdictio was disused in the case of Peculatus and a somewhat severer punishment took its place. Under the earlier Emperors, the punishment of Deportatio and Interdictio both subsisted, as we see by the instances already referred to, and in the case of C. Silanus, Proconsul of Asia, who was convicted of Repetundæ and relegated to Cythera. (Tacitus, Annal. iii. 68, &c.) Some of the later Jurists seem in fact to use Exsilium as a general term for banishment, of which the two species are Relegatio and Deportatio. Relegatio again is divided into two species, the Relegatio to a particular island, and the Relegatio which excluded a person from places which were specially named, but assigned no particular island as the abode of the Relegatus. The term Interdictio went out of use as the name of a special punishment, and Deportatio took its place, perhaps with some of the additional penalties attached to the notion of Deporto. In fact the verb Interdico is used by the later jurists to express both the forms of | Relegatio, that under which a man was excluded from particular places (omnium locorum interdictio), and that by which he was excluded from all places except one (omnium locorum præter certum locum), which was in effect to confine him to the place that was named. (Marcianus, Dig. 48, tit. 22, s. 5, as corrected by Noodt, Opera Omnia, i. 58.) Some times the word Exsilium is used in the Digest (48, tit. 19, s. 38) to express the severer punishment of banishment, as opposed to the lighter punishment Relegatio. Practically then there were two kinds of banishment under the later empire, expressed by the names Rele gatio and Deportatio, each of which had a distinct meaning, while the term Exsilium was used rather loosely. The condemnation of criminals to work in the mines was a punishment in the nature of banishment, but still more severe. Thus, if a man seduced a maid who was of years too tender for cohabitation, he was sent to the mines, if he was a man of low condition; but only relegated, if he was of better condition. The same difference in punishment between people of low condition (humiliores) and those of better condition (honestiores) was observed in other cases; and it may be remarked that the like distinction in inflicting punishments is not unknown in this country in summary convictions. Deportation is the third of the six "peines afflictives et infamantes" of the French Code Pénal. The punishment of deportation consists in the offender being transported out of the continental terri tory of France, there to remain for life: and if he returns, hard labour for life is added to his sentence. The sentence rể deportation carries with it loss of all civil rights; though the government is em powered to mitigate this part of the penalty either wholly or in part. LAW of September, 1835, § 18, Code Pen) Banishment (bannissement) is classed as one of the two "peines infamantes," the other being civil degradation. The offender is transported by order of the government out of the territory of the kingdom for at least five and not more than ten years. BANK, in barbarous Latin bancus, |