Yet it cost Sir Thomas Cook, before he could get his libertie, eight hundred pounds to the queen, and eight thousand pounds to the king: a summe, in that age, more sounding like the ransom of a prince, than the fine of a subject. Besides, the lord Rivers (the queen's father) had, during his imprisonment, despoyled his houses, one in the city, another in the countrey, of plate and furniture, for which he never received a penie recompence. Yet God righted him of the wrongs men did him, by blessing the remnant of his estate to him, and his posterity, which still flourish at Giddy-Hall, in Essex.

As for Sir John Markham, the king's displeasure fell so heavy on him, that he was outed of his place, and Sir Thomas Billing put in his room, though the one lost that office with more honour than the other got it, and gloried in this, that though the king could make him no judge, he could not make him no upright judge. He lived privately the rest of his days, having (besides the estate got by his practice) fair lands by Margaret, his wife, daughter and coheir to Sir Simon Leak, of Cotham, in Nottingham, whose mother, Joan, was daughter and heir of Sir John Talbot, of Swannington, in Leicestershire. (Fuller's Holy State, p. 274.)

"Sir Nicholas Bacon, who was keeper of the

great seal of England, when queen Elizabeth, in her progress, came to his house at Gorbambury, and said to him,' My lord, what a little house you have gotten!' answered her, 'Madam, my house is well, but it is you that have made me too great for my house." (Bacon's Apothegms.)

PUNISHMENT OF THE PILLORY.

PILLORY is said to be a French word, and to be derived of the French word pilastre, a pillar, columna. Et est lignea columna in quâ collum insertum premitur; and thereupon in law it is called collistrigium, quia in eo collum hominum constringitur. This punishment is very ancient, for the Saxons called it healtraux, so called for straining the neck. (Coke's 3 Inst. 219.) This mode of correction has been very wisely abolished in all cases, except on convictions for perjury, and it is. very questionable whether it might not be advisable to abandon it altogether. Some shocking instances are recorded of the fatal consequences of exposing criminals in this way to the unrestrained rage of the populace.

"Both the trebuchetum and the collistrigium," observes Mr. Barrington, (Observations on Assisa Panis et Cerevisæ) were intended 'magis ad ludibrium, et infamiam, quam ad poenam,' say the Glossaries. It may, therefore, well deserve the consideration of a judge, who inflicts the punish

ment of the pillory, (as it becomes at present the great occasion of mobs and riots) whether it can be reconciled to the original intention of the law, in this mode of punishment; as also if this riotous scene ends in the death of the criminal, whether he is not in some measure accessory both to the riot and the murder." In what follows there is something bordering on the ludicrous : "The chief intention of setting a criminal in the pillory is, that he should become infamous and known for such afterwards by the spectators. Can an offender, whose face is covered with rotten eggs and dirt, be distinguished, so as to prevent his gaining a new credit with those who have occasion afterwards to deal with him?" Emlyn, in the preface to his edition of the State Trials, observes, upon the practicability, and upon the obligations on the officers of the law to protect persons in the pillory from injurious treatment, and inveighs against the neglect of affording such protection. Mr. Barrington has collected some curious particulars respecting the pillorium, or collistrigium and the trebuchetum. (State Trials, vol. vii. p. 1207.)

By Holt, Chief Justice, to stand in the pillory, or on the pillory, is the same thing in judgment, and both signify to stand in the pillory: 2 Mod. Rep. 885. The judgment now is, that the offender shall be set in and upon the pillory ;" and

therefore, if the under-sheriff remit part of the judgment, by only setting him upon the pillory, an attachment lies.

In the case of The King v. Beardmore, (Burrow's Rep. vol. ii. p. 792,) an attachment was moved for against Beardmore, the under-sheriff, for a contempt of Court, in remitting part of the sentence pronounced upon John Shebbeare, viz. "That he be set IN and upon the Pillory." Affidavits were filed for the prosecution, stating "that the defendant only stood upon the platform of the pillory, unconfined and at his ease, attended by a servant in livery, (which servant and livery were hired for this occasion only,) holding an umbrella over his head all the time but his head, hands, neck, and arms, were not at all confined, or put into the holes of the pillory; only that he sometimes put his hands upon the holes of the pillory, in order to rest himself."

Mr. Beardmore, in reply, swore "that he

meant that the sentence should be executed in the usual manner; that he stood at a shop opposite the pillory, during the whole time, without almost ever taking his eyes off it during the whole time, in order to see the sentence properly executed; and that he would have obliged him to stand in what he took to be the proper manner, if Shebbeare had offered to withdraw himself from such position." And he proved, by numerous affidavits,

that the manner in which Shebbeare actually stood, was with his hands in and THROUGH the small holes, and his head and face FULLY EXPOSED through (some of the affidavits said in and through) the LARGE hole; and that he stood so during the whole time. It was sworn by several persons that standing without confining the head was the usual ordinary manner, and had been so, for 30 or 40 years, in Middlesex; and that it had been usual in that county, for a great many years backward, and ever since one or two persons, who were locked down in the pillory, had been killed. But Mr. Beardmore and his counsel admitted that his arms were not put through the small holes, and that the pillory was NOT shut down upon Shebbeare, nor his HEAD absolutely THRUST THROUGH IT; which the sheriff's officers swore they did not apprehend to be necessary, unless the culprit was refractory. Neither was it pretended that the upper board of this pillory was at all let down over his neck.

The whole Court were of opinion that the under-sheriff had neglected his duty, and commended Mr. Attorney-General for bringing this complaint before them; as the honour and dignity of the Court, and the end and very essence of justice, were materially concerned in the due and regular execution of their sentences. He was sentenced to pay a fine of 501. and to be committed to the