Denying the divinity of our

Saviour.

Christian religion forming part of the law of the land.

Immaterial whether the blasphemy be oral or written.

Naylor's case. Personating our Saviour.

Annet's case.

and a fanatic, is a libel at common law: for Christianity is a part of the law of the land. (a)

In this case, a juryman asked whether a work denying the divinity of our Saviour was a libel? and Abbott C. J. answered, that a work speaking of Jesus Christ in the language here used was a libel; and defendant was found guilty. A new trial was afterwards moved for, on the ground that this was a wrong answer; but the court held that the answer was right, and refused the rule. Ib.; see 1 Russ. 218.

The doctrine of the Christian religion constituting part of the law of the land, was confirmed by the court of K. B. in passing judgment on defendant for the publication of Paine's Age of Reason, a very impious and blasphemous libel; Ashhurst J. saying, that such wicked doctrines were to be abhorred, not only as an offence against God, but against all law and government, from their direct tendency to dissolve all the bonds and obligations of civil society, and that it was upon this ground that the Christian religion constituted part of the law of the land. R. v. Williams, 1797. 1 Russ. 219. cit. Holt on Libel, 69. n. e.

In regard to the actual criminality, it seems to be immaterial whether the words published be oral or written, though by committing the mischievous matter to writing, the offence would be aggravated, and the measure of punishment affected. 1 Russ. 220. cited Starkie on Libel, 493.

Semble, that the stat. 53 G. 3. c. 160. does not alter the common law, but only removes the penalties imposed by 9 & 10 W. 3. c. 32. on persons denying the Trinity, and extends to them the benefits conferred on all other protestant dissenters by stat. 1 W. & M. c. 18. § 1. (a)

In the year 1656, James Naylor, for personating our Saviour, and suffering his followers to worship him, and pay him divine honours, was sentenced to be set in the pillory, and to have his tongue bored through with a red-hot iron, and to be whipped, and stigmatised in the forehead with the letter B.

Rex v. Annet, 1 Bla. R. 395. The defendant was convicted on Free Inquirer. an information, for writing a most blasphemous libel in weekly papers, called the Free Inquirer; to which he pleaded guilty. In consideration of which, and of his poverty, of his having confessed his errors in an affidavit, and of his being seventy years of age, and some symptoms of wildness that appeared on his inspection in court, the court declared they had mitigated their intended sentence to the following; viz. To be imprisoned in Newgate for a month; to stand twice in the pillory with a paper on his forehead, inscribed blasphemy; to be sent to the house of correction, to hard labour, for a year; to pay a fine of 6s. 8d., and to find security, himself in 100l. and two sureties in 50l. each, for his good behaviour during life.

Navy, profaneness in.

By stat. 22 G. 2. c. 33. art. 2. all persons in or belonging to H. M.'s ships or vessels of war, being guilty of profane oaths, cursings, execrations, drunkenness, uncleanness, or other scandalous actions, in derogation of God's honour, and corruption of good

(a) See Burn's Eccl. Law, 8th edit. vol. iii, tit. Profaneness, p. 215. n. (3.) and vol. ii. tit. Dissenters, Tyrwhitt's notes.

manners, shall incur such punishment as a court-martial shall think fit to impose.

For Profane Cursing and Swearing. See Swearing.

Bodies (Dead), Offences relating to.

TO deprive the dead of funeral rites, or to violate their sepulchral

repose, has been held in abhorrence in all ages and countries. Though the man of enlightened understanding is as regardless of the disposal of his corpse, as the anatomist is professionally desirous to advance his practical knowledge of the human structure; the indifference of the former, and unanswerable arguments of the latter, are wholly insufficient to stem the general detestation of stealing dead bodies, even for scientific purposes. The public mangling of the remains of a beloved relation is of itself repugnant to every feeling of human nature; but how is that feeling outraged where that relation is a female, and the atrocity of her unnatural discerption is consummated by professional ribaldry? The philosopher, however regardless of his own worthless clay, shudders at the last dreary triumph of scientific pursuit, when achieved on the corpse of his friend or kinsman.

The following passage from the Tusculan Questions is well quoted by Mr. Christian in his notes to 2 Bla. C. p. 429. De humatione unum tenendum est, contemnendam in nobis, non negligendam in nostris: ita tamen mortuorum corpora nihil sentire intelligamus. Quantum autem consuetudini famæque dandum sit, id

curent vivi.

:

Taking up a dead body a misdemeanor.

No civil action lies against such as violate or disturb the remains of the dead; nor is the stealing a corpse felony for a corpse is nullius in bonis (3 Inst. 203.), and thus the right of property requisite to support either proceeding is wanting. The stealing the grave clothes, coffin, &c. for the same reason, is felony; for the property thereof remains in the executor, or whoever was at the charge of the funeral. But the common law of England views the public indecency of taking up a dead body as a misdemeanor of the most flagrant nature. (a) In R. v. Lynn, M. 1788, 2 T. R. 733. R. v. Lynn, 2 Leach, Cr. C. 497. S. C., it was determined, that stealing dead bodies, though for the improvement of the science of anatomy, is an indictable offence as a misdemeanor, it being a practice contrary to common decency, and shocking to the general sentiments and feelings of mankind."

In R. v. Lynn the indictment was for taking up the dead body So taking away from the grave: but in another case, where it did not appear a dead body from what burial ground the body had been taken, it was held, for sale. that an indictment for taking away the dead body of a person unknown, with intent to sell and dispose of the same for gain and profit, was good, and defendant was convicted. R. v. Gilles, cor. Bayley J. C. C. R. 366. n.

(a) See on this subject 3 Inst. 110. 12 Rep. 113. 1 Hale, P. C. 515.

2 Bla. C. 429.

4 Id. 236. 2 East's P. C. 652.

Refusal or neglect to bury a dead body.

Bodies cast on shore.

Burying with

out notice to coroner.

Preventing a burial.

Selling body

of convict for dissection.

Cundick's case.

2 & 3 W. 4. c. 75.

Anatomy schools.

Arresting a dead body, totally unjustifiable.

A refusal or neglect to bury dead bodies by those whose duty it is to perform the office, has been considered an indictable misdemeanor, where any inconvenience in the way of nuisance arises from the neglect. 1 Russ. 415. and the authorities cited n. (b) ib.

By 48 G. 3. c. 75. provision is made for the due interment of dead bodies cast on shore from the sea. See post.

1 Russ.

Where a person has died a violent death, it is a misdemeanor to bury the body without giving due notice to the coroner. 416. and the authorities cited, n. (m) and (n).

A conspiracy to prevent a burial is indictable as a misdemeanor. Young's case, 2 T. R. 734., and see Huber, lib. 2. tit. 2. de Arrests personals, 6., cited Burn's E. L. 8th edit. p. 259. n.

So, to sell the dead body of a capital convict for dissection, where dissection is no part of the sentence, is a misdemeanor indictable at common law. R. v. Cundick, Kingston Lent Ass. 1822, cor. Graham B. 1 D. & R., N. P. Rep. 13. Indictment stated "That one E. L. was publicly executed at, &c., and that one G. C. of, &c., undertaker, was retained and employed by W. W. the keeper of the gaol in and for the said county, to bury the body of the said person so executed, for certain reward to be therefore paid to the said G. C., by and on behalf of the said county, and in pursuance of the said retainer and employment, the body of the said person so executed was then and there delivered to the said G. C. for the purpose of being so by him buried as aforesaid, and it then and there became the duty of the said G. C. to bury the same accordingly, but that the said G. C. being, &c. and having no regard to his said duty, nor to, &c., did not, nor would bury the said body, but on the contrary thereof, unlawfully, &c. and for the sake of wicked lucre and gain, did take and carry away the said body, and did sell and dispose of the same, for the purpose of being dissected, &c., to the great scandal, &c.:" Graham B. held, that the indictment was well framed, though apparently drawn in the language of a declaration in assumpsit: Held, also, that to support the indictment, it was not necessary there should be direct evidence that the defendant had sold the body for lucre and gain, and for the purpose of being dissected. Note. The objections which occasioned the above decision were not renewed when defendant was brought up for judgment.

By 2 & 3 W. 4. c. 75. provision is made for the procuring by legal means of subjects for the anatomy schools in furtherance of the study of surgical science. And see post, tit. Murder, in regard to the disposal of the bodies of criminals executed for murder.

A case was cited by Hyde C. J. in Quick v. Copleton, 1 Levinz, 161. 1 Sid. 242. 1 Keb. 866., that a woman who feared the dead body of her son would be arrested for debt was holden liable on a promise to pay in consideration of forbearance, though she was neither executrix nor administratrix, and of which the other judges are said to have doubted, was thus forcibly repudiated by Lord Ellenborough in Jones v. Ashburnham, 4 East, 460. and 465. "It is impossible to contend that this last forbearance could be a good consideration for an assumpsit: for to seize a dead body upon any such pretence would be contra bonos mores, and an extortion on the relatives. It is contrary to every principle of law and moral feeling. Such an act is revolting to humanity, and illegal; and therefore any promise extorted by the fear of it could never

be valid in law. It might as well be said, that a promise in consideration that one would withdraw a pistol from another's breast, could be enforced against the party acting under such unlawful terror." See 1 Burn's E. L. 260. Tyrwhitt's note.

Bonds, &c. (Stealing, &c.) See tit. Larceny.

(Receiving, &c.) tit. Accessary. Breaking Gaol. See Prison Breaking, Breaking open Door, See Arrest.

Bribery.

BRIBERY in a strict sense is taken for a great misprision of one in a judicial place taking any thing whatsoever, except meat and drink in small value, of any one who has to do before him any way, for doing his office, or by colour of his office, but of the king only; and is punishable at the common law by fine or imprisonment. 1 Haw. c. 67. § 1.

So bribery may be committed by any one in an official situation who corruptly makes use of the interest of his place for rewards or promises. 1 Russ. 156.

So it is bribery if any one takes or gives a reward for an office of a public nature. 1 Hawk. P. C. c. 67. § 3. cit. 1 Russ. ib. Corrupt and illegal practices in giving rewards or making promises to voters at elections, or to persons serving as jurymen, are misdemeanors at common law. 1 Russ. ib.

Bribery by persons in office.

Reward taken

for an office.

Reward given

to a voter.

So the attempt to bribe (though it succeed not) is an indictable Attempt to offence. 1 Russ. ib.

As in offering a bribe to a judge in a case pending before him. 1 Russ. ib.

Or to a cabinet minister, in order to procure for defendant a place in the colonies. R. v. Vaughan, 4 Burr. 2494. 1 Russ. ib. Or to a member of a corporation, to influence his vote for the mayor. Plympton's case, 2 Ld. R. 377. 1 Russ. 157.

Ör an attempt, by bribery, to influence a juryman. Young's case, cit. 1 Russ. ib.

Bribery at elections for members of parliament was always an offence at common law, and, in order to enforce the common law, several penal enactments have been provided by 7 & 8 W. 3. c. 7. §4., 2 G. 2. c. 24. § 7., and 49 G. 3. c. 118., for the purpose of repressing such practices.

See Parliament.

Bridges. See tit. Nuisance.

bribe.

Bribery at elections of M. P.

What it is.

Punishment, death.

Evidence.

Solicitation indictable.

Infants.

22 G. 2. c. 33. Mariners.

Evidence.

Buggery.

[9 G. 4. c. 31.]

BUGGERY (from the Italian bugarone, a buggerer, this vice being said to have been brought into England out of Italy by the Lombards) is a detestable and abominable sin, amongst Christians not to be named, committed by carnal knowledge, against the ordinance of the Creator, and order of nature, by mankind with mankind, or with any animal, or by womankind with any

animal. 3 Inst. 58.

By 9 G. 4. c. 31. § 15. every person convicted of the abominable crime of buggery, committed either with mankind, or with any animal, shall suffer death as a felon.

By 18. it is provided, that in prosecutions for this offence it shall not be necessary to prove actual emission, but that the carnal knowledge shall be deemed complete upon proof of penetration alone.

It has been held that the act committed in a child's mouth does not constitute the offence. E. T. 1817. R. v. Jacobs, C. C. R. 331.

It should be observed that the mere soliciting another to the commission of this crime has been treated as an indictable offence. 1 Russ. 568.

In cases where it may not be probable that all the circumstances necessary for the completion of the offence will be proved, it may be advisable only to prefer an indictment for an assault with intent to commit an unnatural crime.

If the party buggered be within the age of discretion (which is generally reckoned the age of 14), it is no felony in him, but in the agent only. But if buggery be committed upon a man of the age of discretion, it is felony in them both. 3 Inst. 59.

1 Hale, 670.

By the articles of the navy (22 G. 2. c. 33. § 19.), if any person in the fleet shall commit the unnatural and detestable sin of buggery or sodomy with man or beast, he shall be punished with death by the sentence of a court martial.

The indictment has the words contra naturæ ordinem rem habuit veneream, et carnaliter cognovit: but Mr. J. Foster says, this was never thought sufficient without also charging peccatumq. illud sodomiticum, anglicé dictum buggery, adtunc et ibidem nequiter felonicè, &c. commisit, et perpetravit; and he refers to Co. Ent. 351.b. as a precedent settled by great advice. 1 East's P. C. 480.

The nature of evidence with respect to the actual commission of this offence, being the same as in case of "Rape," it is sufficient to refer to that head. And in proportion as the crime is most detestable, so ought the proof of guilt to be the clearest and most undoubted. 1 East's P. C. 480. 4 Blac. C. 215.

In a prosecution for this crime, an admission by the prisoner that he had committed such an offence at another time and with another person, and that his natural inclination was towards such practices, ought not to be received in evidence. R. v. Cole, Buckingham Sum. Ass. 1810, and by all the Judges, M. T. following. MS. C. C. R. Phill. on Evid. 143.