*

egenis alendis humandisque, et pueris ac puellis, re ac parentibus destitutis, jamque domesticis

senibus."

The gilds (or guilds) of the Anglosaxons were associations for mutual contribution, to meet various exigencies arising from burials, legal exactions, mulcts, fines, and other payments. In mercantile towns and seaports there were gilds for carrying on commercial enterprise. They met in their gihalla, or guildhall. That of the burghers of Dover is mentioned in Domesday book. The word is derived from gildan, to

pay.

Friendly societies are now established in England upon a regular system. A fund is raised by subscription among the members, or by voluntary contributions, out of which the members, their wives or children, relations or nominees, may be maintained or relieved in advanced age, sickness, infancy, widowhood, or other natural state and contingency, the occurrence of which is susceptible of calculation by way of average. These societies have been sanctioned by the legislature, which makes various provisions for their good management; (among others) giving to magistrates a summary jurisdiction to punish frauds, and to enforce payment of loans, which (under a certain amount) may be advanced to members. The rules of a society are to be confirmed by a bench of magistrates, and filed among the rolls of the quar

ter sessions. One rule usually is, to appoint an arbitrator, to settle disputes between the society and its members.

There are various institutions of this kind, with objects more or less limited. Benefit building societies, and mutual assurance companies are established on the same principle.

NOTE 8.

QUESTIONING OF THE PARTIES.

IN a cause at Athens either party was at liberty to put questions to the other, and to insist upon having them answered, both at the hearing before the magistrate and at the trial. The answers given before the magistrate were taken down in writing, and afterwards produced in evidence, if thought necessary. At the trial the questions were answered in the presence of the jury; they could only be put by the party who was addressing the court ; for no man was allowed to interrupt the speech of his opponent. The jury however might at any time stop the speaker, and cross-examine him, either on matter of fact or argument. Parties often requested the jury to exercise this right, and suggested the questions to be asked.

By the common law of England, no party to a cause can be compelled to furnish evidence against himself. But it is otherwise in courts of equity, where the defendant is obliged to answer upon oath the interrogatories in the bill of the plaintiff. And where a man is unable to prove

his case at law, for lack of certain evidence, which might and in justice ought to be produced by the other party, he is allowed, upon certain conditions, to file a bill of discovery, to obtain that evidence.

It may admit of a doubt, whether in all civil causes it would not be better to let the parties themselves be examined. But there can be no doubt, that (in criminal matters) the practice of questioning the accused is unfair and oppressive, and has always led to injustice. Examples in our own' history teach us, how easily a hostile judge (a Jefferies or a Scroggs) proves the guilt of a prisoner out of his own mouth, This odious practice, though adopted by corrupt judges in evil times, was always contrary to the principles of English law, and at the present day not a vestige of it remains. So careful are we to prevent any unfair advantage being taken of a prisoner, that if a confession be obtained from him by means of a threat or a promise, it is not even receivable in evidence. In one respect we carry our clemency a little too far. It is the custom with magistrates, upon serious charges, to warn the prisoner, that whatever he says may be received in evidence against him. Thus he is deterred from making disclosures, which might lead to a discovery of the truth, and against which no good objection could be offered; for what can be fairer, than calling on a man to make his defence, and leaving him at liberty to say what he pleases, without exercising any influence over

him? Again, it is not unusual, when a prisoner is brought to trial, to dissuade him from pleading guilty, on the ground that he will gain nothing by it. I have seen a man retract his plea of guilty, and be afterwards acquitted. This seems to be mistaken humanity; though I must allow, it is erring on the right side.

At Athens they made no difference between civil and criminal proceedings, and the accused might be pressed with any number of questions. Of the mode in which this was done I give the reader a specimen.

Lysias, on the trial of Eratosthenes, one of the thirty tyrants, calls him up and questions him: "Did you take Polemarchus to prison, or did you not?"

"I obeyed the orders of the government, through fear.'

"Were you in the council room, when the discussion about us took place?"

"I was."

"Did you speak in favour of the motion for putting us to death, or against it?"

"Thinking that we were unjustly treated?"
"Yes."

"Cruel man! you spoke to save my brother,

and yet apprehended him for execution !"