428 



NOTES AND QUEKIES. 



[No. 236. 



which he continued under the press for seven minutes 

 with 250 lbs., and then submitted." 



Barrington also says in the text : 



" As it is very unusual for criminals to stand mute on 

 their trials in more modern days, and it was not unfre- 

 quent, if we go some centuries back in English History, 

 it may not be improper to observe, that the occasion of 

 its being then more common, was to prevent forfeitures, 

 and involving perhaps innocent children in their parents' 

 guilt. These forfeitures only accrued upon judgment of 

 life and limb, and, to the disgrace of the crown, were 

 too frequently levied with the utmost rigour. The 

 sentence, however, hath continued to be put into exe- 

 cution till the' late Act of Parliament (12 Geo. III. 

 •c. 20.) properly abolished it." 



He mentions two other cases, one of which 

 happened at the Sussex assizes, under Baron 

 Thompson, and the other at Cambridge, in 1741, 

 •when Baron Carter was the judge. I do not think 

 there are any more modern instances than these, 

 for they are the only ones cited by counsel in 

 General Picton's case, in justification of inflicting 

 torture on a prisoner. (State Trials, vol. xxx.) 

 The Marquis Beccaria, in an exquisite piece of 

 raillery, has proposed this problem with a gravity 

 and precision truly mathematical : 



" The force of the muscles and the sensibility of the 

 nerves of an innocent person being given, it is required to 

 find the degree of pain necessary to make himself guilty 

 of a given crime." — 1 Bl. Com. 327. n. 



A prisoner standing mute at the present day 

 would be sentenced to undergo the punishment 

 that would be awarded to him, if found guilty of 

 the crime laid to his charge. Investigator. 



Manchester, April 4, 1854. 



Blackstone (book iv. chap. 25.) speaks of the 

 ■cases in which punishment of "peine forte et dure" 

 was inflicted according to the ancient law. It 

 would occupy too great space to quote what he says 

 on this point, and, therefore, I must refer your 

 correspondent to his work itself, where he will also 

 find an inquiry into its origin. The punishment is 

 described almost in the words of your correspon- 

 dent's quotation ; thus : 



" That the prisoner be remanded to the prison from 

 whence he came, and be put into a low, dark chamber ; 

 and there be laid on his back, on the bare floor, naked, 

 unless where decency forbids ; that there be placed upon 

 his body as great a weight of iron as he could bear, and 

 more ; that he have no sustenance, save only, on the first 

 day, three morsels of the worst bread, and, on the second 

 day, three draughts of standing water, that should be 

 nearest to the prison door ; and in this situation this 

 should be alternately his daily diet, till he died, or (as 

 anciently the judgment ran) till he answered." 



Blackstone farther intimates that this punish- 

 ment was abolished by statute 12 Geo. III. c. 20., 

 which shows, of course, that it continued to be 



according to law for more than thirty years after 

 the date mentioned by Abhba. B. O. 



The punishment, or more properly torture, al- 

 luded to by Abhba, was the "peine forte et 

 dure," commonly applied in the early part of the 

 last century to such criminals as refused to plead. 

 Many died under it in order to save their estates, 

 &c. from forfeiture to the crown. In my forth- 

 coming anecdotes of " The Eighteenth Century," 

 several cases are cited from the newspapers of the 

 time ; but, as the MS. is now in the printer's hands, 

 I cannot refer to them. Writing from memory, I 

 think that the last case in which this torture was 

 applied at the Old Bailey in London was in 1735, 

 and reported in the London Magazine of that year. 

 The " Press-yard " at Newgate derives its name 

 from being the scene of these tortures. 



Alexander Andrews. 



job xix. 26. 



(Vol. ix., p. 303.) 



Perhaps the best mode in which I can comply 

 with Mr. C. Mansfield Ingleby's request, is to 

 send for insertion in the " N. & Q." my MS. note 

 on the text in question : 



riNT ispj nw nrw 

 im?a nrnx ■>"\&2Vi 



The difficulties which the reader experiences, 

 on reading the authorised version of this passage, 

 are by no means trifling. Every one knows that 

 the words printed in Italics are not to be found 

 in the original ; the strictly literal rendering, ac- 

 cording to the construction put upon the verse by 

 our translators, would therefore run thus : 



" And after my skin, destroy this, 

 Yet in my flesh shall I see God." 



To say the least of it, " it is hard to be under- 

 stood." The three words in Italics, arbitrarily 

 introduced, make the passage by no means more 

 intelligible. 



The erudite author of the mai'ginal readings 

 (see "N. & Q.," Vol. ix., p. 108.) felt the diffi- 

 culty, and therefore proposed another translation, 

 which is, — 



" After I shall awake, though this body be destroyed, 

 Yet out of my flesh shall I see God." 



By an effort of violent criticism, *"Tiy might be 

 translated my awaking; but it will require an 

 extraordinary critical mind to turn DST 1SpJ into 

 though this body he destroyed. 



The difficulties seem to have originated with 

 the misapprehension of the proper meaning of the 

 verb S]p3 here. Instead of translating it accord- 

 ing to its primitive signification, viz. to surround 



