sistence like a thin solution of gum arabic in water; and as slightly reddening litmus paper, which is also the case with the fresh poison of the Cophias viridis, Vipera elegans, Naja tripudians, Bungarus annularis, and Bungarus cæruleus. The same is the case with the poison of Elaps bivirgatus. In these observations the assertion of M. Schlegel that the venom is neither acid nor alkaline is refuted. Dr. Cantor accounts for the mistake by supposing that M. Schlegel himself never had an opportunity of testing the poison of a living serpent; for, besides the five abovementioned genera of Indian venomous serpents, he found the fresh poison of different species of marine serpents (Hydrus) to possess the property of turning litmus paper red. The same fact with the Crotalus is noticed by Dr. Harlan, who says. "The poison of the living Crotalus, tested in numerous instances with litmus paper, &c., invariably displayed acid properties."† I am informed, by my friend the Revd. Thomas Smith, of a fact which is, at least, curious,--viz. that the snake catchers of Bengal appear to be all Opium Eaters; and that it is a popular belief among the natives that an habitual opium eater may handle venomous snakes with impunity. The point, of course, needs investigation; it, however, appears to have some significance when taken together with the fact, noticed by Dr. T. Anderson,‡ that several of the commoner narcotics have a kind of antidotal action upon each other. * Schlegel's erroneous observation is generally cited it will be found quoted in Taylor on Poisons page 574. † Cantor, as quoted in the Penny Cyclopædia, article NAJA. ASPHYXIA. STRANGULATION. The practice of Thuggee, although now almost entirely suppressed by the active exertions of Government, could scarcely have been operative for so many centuries throughout the length and breadth of all India without leaving strong traces of its marked atrocities upon the criminal habits of the people. The fighting Bishop of Bayeux, who preferred the mace to the sword, was scarcely more chary in the shedding of blood than is the Bengalee, when merely prompted by a calm intention to take life for his own advantage, without being goaded on by any urgent promptings of revenge or terror of detection. That is to say, he will rather use his hands or his cloth than his hussooah-unless he believes that the latter will be more effectual. It is considered that Thuggee has prevailed in all parts of India ever since the first irruption of the Mussulmauns. The practice has been clearly described by most of the European travellers who visited this country during the seventeenth century, especially by Thevenot and Dr. John Fryer.* The * M. Thevenot's description of Thuggee, as practised on the road between Agra and Delhi in 1666, has been frequently cited. Fryer, whe came to the country six years later, makes a very distinct allusion to Thuggee, at Surat, in the following passage. "They were fifteen, all of a gang, who used to lurk under hedges in narrow lanes; and, as they found opportunity, by a device of a weight tied to a cotton [?] bowstring made of guts (with which they tew cotton) of some length, they used to throw it upon passengers so that, winding it about their necks, they pulled them from their beasts, and dragging them to the ground, strangled them, and possessed themselves of what they had. One of them was an old man with his two sons, the youngest not fourteen. This being their practice, they were sentenced, according to the lex talionis, to be hanged; wherefore, being delivered to the Cutwal, or Sheriff's men, they led them two miles with ropes first definite and full account of the Indian Stranglers was given, in 1820, by Dr. Richard Crozier Sherwood, a Madras Surgeon, and the subject was taken up, at about the same time, by Mr. Shakespear, then Superintendent of Police for the Western Provinces. Subsequently, the investigations of Colonel Sleeman led to the exposure of the whole system, and to its almost entire suppression. The three most recent trials, for Thuggee, in Bengal, were held-one at Midnapore in September, 1852†-this, however, was merely supplementary to a trial held in 1838, and ended in the conviction of an aged Thug Jemadar of two murders committed many years previously, another at Dacca in May 1854, where a man was found guilty of participation in two acts of thuggee about twenty years previously, and the third at the same place in December of that year. The crime for which the prisoners were sentenced, was committed 14 years before. It was lately stated that, during the year 1854, only two about their necks to some wild date trees. In their way thither they were cheerful, and went singing and smoking tobacco, the Banyans giving them sweetmeats. They being as jolly as if going to a wedding; and the young lad now ready to be tied up, boasted, that though he were not fourteen years of age, he had killed his fifteen men; wherefore the old man, as he had been the leader of these two, was first made an example for his villany, and then the two striplings were advanced, all as the rest were, half a foot from the ground; and then, cutting their legs off that the blood might flow from them, they left them miserable spectacles, hanging till they dropped of their own accord." By the Mussulmaun Law, a person Strangling another, was not liable to suffer death, according to the doctrine of Aboo Huneefah, (though he was, in the opinion of the two disciples) unless he be notorious, for committing this offence; in which case [i. e., evidently of systematic Thuggee,] if he have not shown signs of repentance before he is apprehended, he should be punished with death as an example.—Sale, p. 269. So, also, a Strangler confessing his crime, or detected with the usual implements of strangling and stolen property, may be sentenced by the Imam to be beheaded and crucified, p. 328. *Asiatic Researches, vol. xiii, p. 250. † Nizamut Adawlut Reports, vol. ii., part 2 of 1852, p. 581. cases of Thuggee occurred in the Punjaub.* The last conviction for Thuggee in the North-West Provinces, to which I find reference, was on the 11th June 1852, for a crime committed several years ago. It has already been shown, however, that the practice of Thuggee by Poison is still very generally prevalent nearly in all India. It appears, from the accounts given by the above authorities, that, in Madras, two Phansigars (or Stranglers) were considered to be indispensable to effect the murder of every victim, and commonly three were engaged. The most frequent mode of perpetrating the act was by one of them suddenly putting the cloth round the neck of the victim and holding it, while the other end was seized by his accomplice; the ligature, crossed behind the neck, was drawn tight, the two Phansigars pressing the head forwards, while the third villain, crouching in readiness behind the traveller, seized his legs and threw him forward upon the ground. In this situation, he could make little resistance, and the man holding his legs kicked him until life was extinct. They generally buried the body, with its face downwards, in a sandy place or dry water-course, where the soil is dug with facility [at present, as we have already seen, by no means a rare mode of concealing the bodies of murdered persons in Bengal]. They often made deep gashes in the bodies, from the shoulders to the hands and to the feet, laying open the abdomen and dividing the tendon of the heel; wounds were also made between the ribs into the chest; and sometimes, if the hole was short, the knees were disjointed and the legs turned back upon the body. These precautions were taken to expedite the dissolution of the body, as well as to prevent its inflation which, by raising or causing fissures in the superincumbent sand, might attract jackals, and lead to the exposure of the corpse. When the body could not be readily * Friend of India, 23rd August 1855. interred, it was tied in a sack and hidden, or was thrown into a tank or well. Forbes states that, during 1808 and 1809, no less than 67 bodies were taken out of wells in the single district of Etawah. On account of the peculiar appearances presented by many bodies in India during the advance of decomposition, there is frequently some danger of the medical officer's assuming that the aspect of the corpse affords presumption of death by Strangulation,* and there certainly do appear to be one or two cases in the records in which it might be questionable whether an error of this kind had not been committed. Where the corpse is found in an attitude which seems to denote that death has come upon it by surprise, with its arms thrown out and its fingers spread, its lower limbs widely separated and partially drawn up, its head lying back, its neck projecting and turgid with dark fluid blood, the mucous membrane of the larynx of a dirty red colour, the tongue protruded, bloody froth escaping from the mouth and nose, and bloody fluid from the eyes and ears, the eyes starting from the head, the scalp puffy and appearing, when cut into, almost like a bloody sponge,-it is not singular that the idea of Strangulation should first present itself in the Surgeon's mind. Standing alone, however, these signs go for nothing, when putrefaction has much advanced. They are merely the ordinary appearances in a rapidly decomposed full-blooded body, the head and shoulders of which have not been kept raised. * Especially if he bear in memory Shakspear's description of a strangled person. His face is black, and full of blood; His eye-balls further out than when he lived, Staring full ghastly, like a strangled man: His hair upreared, his nostrils stretch'd with struggling; His hands abroad display'd, as one that grasp'd And tugg'd for life, and was by strength subdued. KING HENRY VI., PART II., ACT 3. |