426 ISLE of M A N. ■ 
pounds, and bamfhed. Profecutions for the offence, the 
offender continuing in the ifland, muff: be commenced 
within three years. This aft, pafled in 1757, is the firft 
that inflifts the punifbment of tranfportation. Making a 
falfe entry, or altering an entry in the parifh-regifter with 
evil intent, is a crime punifbable by death. For bigamy 
or polygamy there was not in England, until the reign of 
JamesI. any other punifhment than eccleffaffical cenfure; 
and this is ftill the cafe in Man. The fecond marriage is 
null, and the children confequently illegitimate. 
Of the various fpecies of homicide, none fliort of mur¬ 
der is rendered criminal. The punifhment for this of¬ 
fence is capital, death, and the forfeiture of property. 
For a rape, the punifhment is capital, unlefs the woman 
be unmarried. In this cafe fhe has her choice, either to 
hang, behead, or marry, the offender. (Statute-book, 
anno 1577.) No inffance of a conviction is upon record, 
and only one traditionary. The unnatural crime, which 
is made capital by datute of 1665, is only that between 
man and beaft, not that between man and man. 
Not only is burglary felonious, but alfo entering a houfe 
•without a door, if there be but two flicks acrols the door¬ 
way, or a bundle of gorfe reared up there. It is remark¬ 
able that neither this crime nor that of murder is men¬ 
tioned in the flatute-book, although one part of it was 
intended to include the whole common or cuftomary law 
of Man. Theft is divided into great and fmall ; that 
which is equal to or exceeds the value of fixpence half¬ 
penny, and that which is under fixpence halfpenny. The 
firft includes necelfarily theft of fheep, lamb, goat, kid, 
fwine, or honey taken from bee-hives 5 the crime is capi¬ 
tal. The fecond offence, called petty larceny, fubjefts 
the offender to corporal punifhment and imprifonment at 
the difcretion of the court. 
Forgery was not punifhable in England, till the reign 
of Elizabeth, except at common law. The crime was in 
no cafe capital. Commerce and paper-credit fo much fn- 
creafe the temptation and the opportunity, that a multi¬ 
tude of other flatutes have fince this period been found 
neceffary, and there is now fcarcely an inffance wherein 
fraudulent forgery is not felonious. The Manks laws 
are ftill filent upon the fubjeifl. Only one, and that a 
modern inffance, has occurred. We have remarked the 
abundance of card tickets, payable on demand, and equally 
current with the filver coin. Several forged ones, for 
five (hillings each, were iffued in the name of a gentleman, 
refident at Peel, accuftomed to have his notes in circula¬ 
tion. The criminal was detefled, and confefl'ed the fraud. 
It could not be confidered in any other light than that of 
a civil debt. The matter was in fome way compounded, 
and the prifoner fet at liberty. When a fummons to ap¬ 
pear at court was nothing elfe than a piece of marked 
done, we may eafily fuppofe that an error or a perverfton 
of its ufe might frequently happen. To counterfeit or 
make falfe ufe of the governor’s token fubjeiled the offen¬ 
der to a fine of 20s. of the deemfter’s token, to a fine of 
10s. befides imprifonment, in either cafe, during the go¬ 
vernor’s pleafure. 
The courts were not formerly courts of record. The 
laws were locked up in the breads of the governor and 
deemilers, conveyed by oral tradition from one genera¬ 
tion to another, and known to the people only by the len- 
tence which they decreed. This practice was followed 
by the more eligible plan of keeping precedents, as guides 
for future determinations. Even then, they were kept 
by three locks, their refpeflive keys in the pofleffion of 
the three chief officers of date, from the fcrutinizing eye 
of the vulgar 5 nor were they, till the fifteenth century, 
generally known to the body of the people. 
We cannot refrain from relating a few anecdotes arif- 
ing out of the real or fuppofed privileges of the ifland. 
Mr. Woods informs us, that, “although perfons having 
debts abroad or actions determined againit them are pri¬ 
vileged, excepting lb far as relpefts their moveable pro¬ 
perty, yet no afylutn is here afforded for any one guilty 
of criminal conduct.” 
A few’ years ago, a dock-broker of the name of Da¬ 
niels, nephew to Mr. Goldfmid, arrived here from Lon¬ 
don with about eleven thoufand pounds in his pocket. 
He had been employed by a perfon to fell out dock to the 
amount of fixteen or eighteen thoufand pounds, and re¬ 
ceived the money of the purchafer. He gave his employ¬ 
er, as is ufilial, a draft upon his banker for "the amount; 
but not thinking proper to pay in any of the (urn received, 
and not having fufficient effects there, the draft was re¬ 
turned for non-payment, and the drawer was not to be 
found. It appears evident from the tranfaclion that his 
defign was fraudulent ; but not more fo than that of any 
perfon purchafing goods, re-felling them, and making off 
with the money ; which latter praftice is deemed in law, 
unlefs the articles be bought under falfe pretences, to be 
a private and not a public wrong. There is no law to 
prevent a man’s drawing upon his banker for a greater 
fum than the effeCts in his hands. The vendor, in ac¬ 
cepting the draft inftead of cadi, took it upon the reputed 
credit and integrity of Daniels; and, although many per¬ 
fons confidered the tranfaftion as a fraud which the law 
could reach, yet the greater number of thofe well in¬ 
formed on fubjeCts of this nature did not imagine it to 
be fo. Of the former opinion was the chief magiftrate of 
the city of London, who, on complaint being made to 
him, gave immediate directions to have the offender ad- 
vertifed in.all the papers, with a reward for his apprehen- 
fion. Thefe advertifements very accurately deferibed his 
perfon ; and the high-bailiff of Douglas was the fird who 
perceived a refemblance between their defeription and a 
gentleman who had lately taken lodgings in that town. 
He communicated his fufpicions to others, and an exa¬ 
mination was determined upon. The account which he 
gave of himfelf was fo contradictory as nearly to deter¬ 
mine their opinion; and, inftead of conveying him to the 
caftle, the more lenient meafure was adopted of placing 
fentinels at the door of his apartments till the governor’s 
pleafure could be known. He afterwards confeffed to the 
lieutenant-governor and the high-bailiff, that their fuf¬ 
picions were well founded. The council was convened 
upon the occafion, and it was determined to deliver him 
into the cuftody of twoBow-ftreet officers, who had come 
in purfuit of him. It was thought expedient to gain Da¬ 
niels’ confent to return. This and the money in his pof¬ 
leffion were obtained by the officers, ort giving their pro- 
mife that no criminal profecution fhould be carried on 
againft him. On his arrival in London, a procel's of this 
nature was, neverthelefs, immediately commenced ; but 
he was finally acquitted by the jury. This tranfaclion 
gave rife to a long paper war, carried on by the high-bai¬ 
liff, and a refident of Douglas, fuppofed to be fir John 
Macartney, through the medium of the Manks Weekly 
Journal, refpeCting the legality of the arreft. It was af¬ 
firmed by the former to be legal, on account of the crimi¬ 
nality of the party ; and of precedents in fimitar, or lefs 
fraudulent, cafes. The latter urged, with fome plaufibi- 
lity, that it was at leaft a queftion which admitted of 
doubt; that it had been the immemorial cudom in all 
doubtful cafes, to fummon the keys and take their opinion 
upon the fubjeCl; and that the delivery of Daniels, with¬ 
out previoudy fo doing, was an illegal a£t. Soon after 
the agitation of this queftion, the high-bailiff publifhed 
in the Manks paper, a refolution which he intended to 
move in the houfe of keys, himfelf being a member of 
that body, that all privileges enjoyed by foreigners fhould 
be annulled, and that the ifland fhould be no longer an 
afylum for the unfortunate or the fraudulent. His 
former opponent was again roufed to action. He affferted, 
that much of the profperity of the country arofe from its 
being the refidence of ftrangers (himfelf being one), and 
that without them it would be a miferable place. The 
framer of the bill replied, that it would be more credita- 
