examined, and similarly all the rest of his side; all being considered again as the same person, each attending carefully to what is said, each bound to answer definitely every question asked, and careful to avoid “blots." When blots are made, the opposite side again appeal, and score as many to their side, up to three, as the judge appoints. Whichever side at the end has made fewest blots wins. The chief amusement of the game will be found to depend, if those playing have any humour or imagination, on the strange falsehood of the replies given, the ingenuity requisite to sustain them, and the curious web of self-consistent impossibilities which will have to be in vented to prop up a statement; and again, on the cleverness which will frequently be employed to palliate or explain away a blot.

We will now imagine an example. A accuses a of murdering his page, stealing a spoon at dinner, smoking in the railway, lying in bed till twelve, or anything whatever. Suppose, for instance, he declares that a murdered his “buttons.” In answer to questions, he says, that a did it last night, in the coal-cellar, at 11.25 P.M. ; he knows the time, because he heard a scream at that time by the Horse Guards clock, which he saw by moonlight, across two miles of houses, with a telescope, bought in CochinChina. When asked by a why he, a, murdered the boy, A replies that it was partly from general blood-thirstiness, partly for the sake of the buttons.

a. What did I do with the buttons ? A. Sold them.

a. To whom? A. To the Emperor of France.

a. When? what for ? A. At seven this morning-to make bullets of..

a. Who told you ? A. The Emperor himself.

a. When did you see him ?-&c.
Or again, when 6 is examining :-

b. Where was the body found ? A. In the canal.

6. How do you know I killed him in the coal-cellar ? A. The knife was found there.

b. How did you get into my coalcellar ? A. Crept in.

b. What for ? A. To steal coals.—&c. Presently, in the course of the game:

c. (asks D). Did he struggle much when I killed him ? D. No.

c. What did he say? D. Take care of my wife and children.”

c. (asks E). How did they identify the body ? E (remembering that the buttons had been cut off). Because your knife was found sticking in him.

All a's side at once shout for a blot, since E had said before (or A, who is identical with E, had said) that he himself had found the knife in the coalcellar. E justifies himself by urging that a had used two knives ; but the judge thinks the excuse poor, and awards à blot for three. The last answer is disallowed.

Possibly, again, b may ascertain from C that the struggle lasted three-quarters of an hour in solemn silence; and then may appeal for a blot, because D had mentioned his dying words. C gets out of it by saying that this was when the struggle was over, and the judge lets it pass. Again, perbaps, a asks B by what light he killed him; and is told that it was by a moderator lamp which he took down with him. B next replies that he took it down at 11.25, priding himself on the accuracy with which he has followed A's statement. A blot is called for, because A said that after the long dying struggle the scream was heard at 11.25 by the Horse Guards. B explains that, on this particular night, the Horse Guards clock had been stopped by order of the Commander-in-Chief, because his youngest child had got the measles. The judge allows a blot for one.

The above suggestions will probably be enough to explain the game. They, no doubt, wear a childish appearance in print; but almost all the humorous fancy which is the zest of such a game must appear childish if coldly written down. After the quarter of an hour, A sets up his alibi, saying, for example, that he was at his club over the firereading-with Jones and Brown-reading Froude's History—the tenth volume.

it was that they were doing so, when ten in the game than others. The reasons volumes are not yet published ? The of this are many and obvious. 4. There reply will be, that they are published, must be a score of some kind kept. the day before yesterday, and so on; These canons were obtained, it may be falsehood being, in “Ural Mountains,” observed, chiefly by an induction, separather a virtue than a vice.

ration, and collection of all the best points Having explained the principles of of other games, partly from consideration the game, it might now be sufficient to of human nature. 5. There ought to be, commend it to an enlightened public; in the Ideal Game, no distinction of sexes, but for the sake of candour a postscript which always breeds some awkwardappears necessary. The account above ness, or some vulgarity. 6. There must given of the origin of the game is pure- be no writing—no poetry-no display ly and utterly fabulous. There is no of knowledge. 7. On the whole we Orula tribe of Kafirs; there never was decided, this being a social game, that such a person as Sir Frederick Manson; question and answer ought to be brought there was no British expedition in 1853. in. But the game must not depend on The game has not been played for a mere words. 8. Chance must be an hundred years; it has only been played element. 9. It will, probably, be most once since the Creation. It originated successful if some relation of life is in the brain of two ordinary persons, the introduced, by way of parody or otherwriter of this article and another, who wise; we thought of three, viz. that of are not foreign travellers nor African king and court, army and generals, barbarians, but individuals chiefly occu- judge and jury. 10. Perhaps, let it pied in calm study, and more given, have some hard names, as in “squails ;” generally speaking, to work than to play. though this is almost unworthy of the Observing with pain the distressed state Game of the Future. 11. There should of our country for the want of quiet, be progress in the game by a series of social amusement, we determined to separate efforts, a distinct advance, step remedy the defect, and invent the Game by step ; perhaps alternately. 12. There of the Future. We set to work in a should be something in it involving the truly workmanlike manner. As Edgar possibility of dispute. 13. The question Poe declared that he had composed the arises now, How is each side to add one “Raven" by working from first princi- to its score? Two methods chiefly sugples, building up a gradual structure on gested themselves; by guessing some mere naked theory, so we decided that puzzle right, or by some fault, e.g. selfwe would do. We meditated pro- contradiction, of the other side. We foundly on the subject of games, and thought the latter the best. 14. There laid down, one by one, certain canons for must be not only the play of fancy, but our guidance, adding each new one as it some absurdity and incongruity as well. suggested itself, and shaping our ideas Such were the laws which we conof the game according to them. The ceived necessary for a perfect game. following is—we are now speaking boná They were distinctly laid down, in the fide-the order in which they occurred to above order, before the game aboveus, as we wrote them down at the time; described shaped itself finally, after and when the “Ural Mountains” has been some days of consideration. It is now established for centuries as the national offered to England. The Anglo-Saxon English amusement, the statement will race will receive it with eagerness, and no doubt possess an historical interest. will hand it down as an heir-loom to In the first place we settled that we ages. If it should indeed fail, it will would exclude physical materials, in only be a fresh proof of the weakness order to make the game universal. This of the deductive method ; if it succeed, was Canon 1. Canon 2 was, that there the world will not be slow to recognize must be two sides, as in all the really the Creative Might of Genius. good games. Canon 3. Some of the

E. E. B.



TRIAL by Jury seems to have been a unfair law, as we should rather hold to true and most early law of the social the more righteous one of the Judge of life of the Britons, and therefore of all the earth, that the soul that sinneth Britain, and to have been practised by it should die. But yet, in practice if the Celtic people, as by many other not in law, great tribes, such as highly kindreds of men, in their times of free cultivated nations, will sometimes act tribeship.

on the barbarous rule ; for it was said In the earliest forms of men-gather by some men, a little before the taking ings, a father was the law-head of his of Pekin, that the English would show house, and therefore the law-head of his little quarter to the Chinese, owing to sons, and even of their children, and of their putting to death some of the Eng. all the souls-men, women, children, lish prisoners who had fallen into their and war-slaves—who were under his hands; or, to put it more in the form múnd or protection. Thence were formed of the barbarous rule, that, as some patriarchal tribes, and afterwards greater Chinese had slain some Englishmen, so chief-led tribes, which our forefathers other Englishmen would therefore slay in early times called cin, the head of other Chinese-a form of blood-clearing which was the cining (our king or kin- which, as long as there are wars, will head), as the head of the Arab tribe is be, and very likely must be, taken up, the Shaikh ; of the Tartar, the Khan; whether at Pekin, at the Peiho, in India, of the African, the Gerad, Sultan, and or elsewhere. others. That of the Britons was called The next step in the law of bloodthe Pencenedl, or tribe-head ; and that clearing is that the man-slayer shall be of the Israelites the Goel, or Goel-ha- slain only by a kinsman of the slain, as dum, the redeemer of blood.

was the rule of the Goel, or redeemer of In this kind of tribeship the more blood by the Divine law, which deusual law is that, if a man of a tribe A clared that the sinning man only should slay a man of the tribe B, there must die, and should die only by the probe a clearing by the tribe B of the blood tector of the lost life, and that the of their slain tribesman, and that, until slayer of his neighbour unawares should there be such a clearing of his blood, it be shielded in a city of refuge. lingers as a stain on his tribe or him. The next state of the law of blood is self. The Arabic word “thar” for the a usage that, for the sparing of bloodtaking of blood for blood, means a shed, a compensation in goods shall be cleansing; and in the Edipus Tyran- given by the kin of the slayer to the nus, l. 313, there was a stain (uinoua) kindred of the slain ; and then a setting from a slain man; and (line 255) his forth, such as there was in the Saxonmurder ought not to be left uncleansed English and British laws, of the law. (akábaptor).

worth of man's life or limb, which lifeThe rudest form of the law of blood worth or limbworth was called by the clearing is, that any man of the tribe B Britons galánas, and by the English may slay any man of the tribe A; geald. which, I believe, is the law of blood While tribes are asunder and even among the tribes of Australia.

rather free of each other, the law seems to

blood-money, instead of blood itself. A writer on some African tribes says : “ In most cases war arises from blood“ feuds, when a member of one clan “ kills the subject of another, and will “ not pay the recognized valuation (geald) of the party injured, or allow “himself to be given up to the venge“ance of the family which has sustained " the loss. In such cases as these whole “ tribes voluntarily march out to avenge “ the deed by forcibly taking as many “ cattle from the aggressor as the mar“ket valuation may amount to ;" so that even this violence is a measured


In Arabia, “If a man commit homi“ cide, the Cadi endeavours to prevail “ upon the family of the victim to accept “a compensation in money or in kind (geald), the amount being regulated “ according to custom in different tribes," as it was regulated in Britain by law. Should the offer of blood-money be refused, the “ thar” comes into operation; and any person within the “khomse," or the fifth degree of blood of the homicide, may be legally killed by any one within the same degree of consanguinity to the victim. The law holds between distinct tribes as well as between families. Hence an Arab is mostly unwilling to tell a stranger his own name, or that of his tribe or his father, lest there should be “thar” between them; and in most encampments there are found refugees, who have left their tribe on account of some homicide. In case, after a murder, a man within the “thar” takes to flight, the law allows him a scope of three days and four hours from the hands of any pursuer; and, if such a man does not embody himself in another tribe, he will sometimes wander from tent to tent, or even rove through towns and villages, with a chain round his neck, and in rags, begging contributions to make up the blood-money.

When kins or tribes are gathered into a kingdom, the kingdom's law will be gin to restrain the law of blood-clearing, which is then taken up by the

geald. Thus, among the Israelites the early blood-law was restrained by the Divine law of the Goolah, or redeemership of blood.

The Goel, or redeemer of blood (a type of Christ), was the eldest of the firstborn sons of the kin, and it belonged to his office (1.) to redeem lands which had been alienated from the kin. (See Ruth, ii. and iv.) (2.) to redeem his kinsmen from slavery ; and (3.) to right their wrongs, and take the life of any shedder of their life-blood.

There was not under the Mosaic law any hired executioner, such as the man whom we call by the horrid name of Jack Ketch—which Ketch means choker - but the law gave over the murderer to the Goel of the dead, as it gives him into the hands of our sheriff. This should be borne in mind by readers of the Bible, since it tells of many takings of life by Goels, in such a way that, if the Goolah be not understood, the Goels will seem to be acting only with bloodthirstiness ; whereas they were fulfilling an office which they could no more shun than a sheriff of a county can shun his sad office on the scaffold.

We have a markworthy case of this kind in Judges, viii. 18, &c., where Gideon takes Zeba and Zalmunna, who had slain his brothers at Tabor, and said to them, “If ye had saved them alive I would not slay you," and seemed sorry that they must die. “And he “said unto Jether his firstborn, Up, and “slay them. But the youth drew not his “ sword : for he feared, because he was " yet a youth.” Now, why did Gideon, in the full strength of his manhood, defer the office of justice to his little boy ? Because that boy was the Goel of his kin, and as such the protector even of his own father. He was his father's firstborn ; and that Gideon could not be a Goel is clear from vi. 15, where he says, “I am the least (the small one or youngest) in my father's house."

From the law of Goolah we can also understand how it was that in many cases fathers were as nobodies as law guardians of their own children ; how it

kah's father Bethuel, and how high over khomse (an Arabic word meaning fifth), him was holden her brother Laban, in or fifth degree of kindred of the slayer, the case of her marriage ; and why may be killed for his crime; whence we Jacob (Gen. c. xxxiii.), who was not a may infer that a man of wider kindred Goel, on hearing of the dishonouring of than the fifth is bloodguiltless. So the Dinah, held his peace until his sons, one British laws ask, “Is there a case in of whom was a first-born, came home; which a father is bound to pay galánas and why the sons of Jacob, not he hin:- and his son is not ?" and the answer is, self, answered Shechem and Hamor, and (Oes. Gorchaw) “Yes, a Gorchaw;" that told them that in such and such cases is, a fifth-blooded kinsman, “is bound they would give their daughters unto to pay galánas and his son is not." them, or otherwise they would take their We need not hence believe that the daughter and they would be gone ; and Britons got their law of the Gorchaw why Reuben (a first-born), finding that from that of the khomse of the East; Joseph was not in the pit, rent his for, if we were to hold their practice of clothes and uttered that wail, which is blood-clearing, we should most likely in Hebrew so touching from its sounds, learn by experience that it ought not to “The child is not, and 1, whither shall reach beyond the fifth blood. I go ?

We now come to another important Having thus perceived the steps by inquiry. How was it to be tried whether which the law at last settled the giving a reputed slayer was or was not guilty of compensation in goods, for blood, we of the blood which was required at his will next inquire who were to pay the hands, and whether, therefore, his kin geald or galánas. With the Britons the was bound to pay his galánas or not? A galánas was to be paid by the kinsmen charge is not always a conviction, and a of the slayer or wrong-doer, out to the belief may not be truth. fifth degree of kindred.

Among the Britons the accusation, For our authorities as to ancient whether it were one of murder, of debt, British law we have the Law Triads, of theft, or of other wrong, was to be and the so-called Laws of Hywel Dda, tried by the reputed wrong-doer's kinswhich are really the Laws of Hywel men, those who were bound to right his Dda and others (Cyfreithieu Hywel Dda wrongs—wrongs done and wrongs borne; ac eraill). The laws state that one of and this was the rise of our Jury. those others was Moelmud, who lived “If a debtor,” says British law, "shall before the birth of Christ, and was the “have denied a bondsman (mach), let first who made good laws in this island, “him be cleared by the oath of himself and that his laws had holden down to “and six men, the nearest to his own the time of Hywel Dda, who changed « state (nesaf ei werth), his peers, four some of the old ones and made others— “ from his father's kindred, and two of though the new ones, as is clear from “his mother's.” Elsewhere, « They the older law triads, could not have been “must be of the same kindred to the great constitutional ones. It has been “ debtor as those who would take or the fashion to doubt the truth of the old “ pay his galánas.” Welsh writings; but I can only say that If a man denied a contract he was to the more I can understand them the be cleared in the same way, by the brighter they make to me the truth of oaths of four men of his father's kin and other ancient writings on Britain, Latin two of his mother's kin; and so strict or English.

was the law that a man was to be tried Now there is a markworthy coinci- by his kinsmen or peers, that it declares dence in the law of blood-clearing with that, if a plaintiff should challenge one the Britons, as it is given in the Law of these oathsmen, no ground of outTriads and the Laws of Hywel Dda, and casting him would be good but that of the law of the same among the Arabs. a want of kindred (namyn na hanfo o'i

« ElőzőTovább »