THE

JOURNAL OF JURISPRUDENCE.

HISTORICAL SKETCHES IN THE LAW OF SCOTLAND. No. III. THE LAWS OF DAVID I.-(Continued.)

BEFORE taking leave of the criminal code under King David, it may be worth while to note one or two provisions, which, in their quaint and humorous conception of justice, seem to retain an impress of the personal character of their author. That character, of which the lineaments are thus strangely recalled to us, I believe to have belonged to no other than the monarch himself. One of such quaint laws is the following among the Burgh laws:-"De querela blaa et blodi. Si quis verberando fecerit aliquem blaa et blodi ipse qui fuerit blaa et blodi prius debet exaudiri sive prius venerit aut non ad querimoniam faciendam. Et si uterque fuerit blaa et blodi qui prius accusaverit prius exaudietur."-Ll. B. 82. Still more humorously conceived is the method of expiation proposed by the following law :-" De eo qui interfecit alienum canem domesticum. Item statuit dominus rex si aliquis injuste et contra legem alterius canem interfecerit vigilabit et custodiet ejus fimarium per annum et diem (He shall wak upon that mannis myddin for a 12 month and a day), aut omnia damna infra dictum tempus per eum sustentata pro defectu canis sui restaurabit sine ulla contradictione."-(Ass. R. David 33.) What authority but that of royalty would venture to place on the statute-book a penalty so apt and yet so ludicrous as the first of the above alternatives? And does not the alternative which follows look like the commonplace interpretation of the royal Nemesis by some matter-of-fact councillor?

The criminal statutes of King David's reign are not the only ones from which it is possible to collect some personal traits of

VOL. X. NO. CXII.-APRIL 1866.

N

that monarch's character, and it is interesting to find that the traits to be gathered from such sources entirely harmonise with the character for gentleness, humanity, and piety uniformly ascribed by contemporaneous chroniclers to a monarch who has been called the Justinian of our Scottish jurisprudence, but whose true place is that of a more primitive legislator. Among such characteristic laws may be cited the following:Quilibet debet uti propriis terris suis," a rubric to the principle of which it were scarcely possible to demur, but the practice of which, as the law proceeds to show, had not been much in fashion. "Item definivit rex quod qui terras possident eisdem propriis terris suis utantur atque in iis se et suos pascant nec iis liceat quod hucusque solebant agere scilicet propriis terris parcere et terras alienas devastare et sicut possessionibus suis propriis uti. Hanc scilicet pravam consuetudinem rex modis omnibus prohibet ne diucius sub sua potestate aliquis sic precise agere presumat sub sua plenaria forisfactura."-(Ass. R. David 26.) To a similar purport is the following law :-" De transitu per terras alienas. Item decrevit et deliberavit rex quod si quis major vel minor curiam regis adierit vel alia racionabili causa compellente cum tot hominibus pergat ut sibi convenit ne superflua multitudine secum ducta terras regis episcoporum seu aliorum eundo et redeundo devastet. Item cum in itinere suo ad cujuscunque domini domum vespere venerit ab eo hospitium roget et postquam cum concessione vel jussione ejusdem secundum morem patrie homines partiti domos intraverint ab iis a quibus recepti sunt per violenciam cibos supra vires eorum non exigant sed secundum possa eorum. Et si dominus terre dederit aut preceperit quid detur iis accipiant. Quod si aliquis ex eis ad quos ordinati sunt hospitem quem dominus suus juste preceperit sibi suscipere ejiceat et foris esse jejunantem facit propter hoc dabit domino suo unam vaccam.”—(Ass. R. David 27.) Still more illustrative of a desire to preserve throughout the country habits of mutual hospitality and civility is the following:"De transitu per terram alicujus domini sine licencia. Preterea decrevit rex quod si quis decretum suum predictum transgrediendo terram alicujus domini sine licencia vel concessione ejus intraverit et per violenciam cibos ab hominibus sumserit pro hac injuria domino illius terre octo vaccas emendet et deinceps ab ejusmodi iniquitate abstineat. Precipit eciam rex quod causa charitatis sub sua potestate conveniens et legalis hospitalitas custodiatur et omnis vastacio hostilis et violencia penitus extin-.

guatur nec ulterius ab aliquo fieri presumatur."—(Ass. R. David 28.)

The following laws are even yet more plain in their evidence of the personal character and authority of King David himself as their source; and indeed, without questioning their genuineness so far as to impute an intentional fiction to their authorship and substance, it would be impossible to resist the force of that evidence. To convey an adequate impression of the evidence given by these laws corroborative of the traditional character of this sovereign as gathered from other sources, it will be necessary to cite entire the few laws now particularly referred to. They are as follows:-"De pace regis data peregrinis et mercatoribus. Item precipit Dominus Rex ut omnes homines in regno in officiis fideliter vivant et propria negocia fideliter agant. Qui vero peregrini sunt et loca sanctorum pro remedio anime sue visitare volunt firmam pacem eundo et redeundo habeant ut nemo iis injuriam faciat. Caveant et ipsi ut legaliter se contineant. Mercatores autem sive per terram sive per aquam venientes rectitudinem regis regi per ministros suos plenarie reddant sicut in diebus regis patris sui constitutum erat. Omnes autem ministri qui in mansionibus ecclesiarum vel alibi in regno commorantur in suis ministeriis fideliter agant et sua lege juste utantur et regi fideles sint. Quorum eciam nomina et numerum per aliquem fidelem rex scire vult. Prefatam autem constitucionem ideo constituit ut inter peregrinos mercatores et ministros suos in regno commorantes distanciam non cognoscat et unusquisque in officio suo fideliter vivat." (Ass. R. David 29.) Again-" De proteccione regis concessa pauperibus et debilibus. De pauperibus et debilibus constitutum est ut omnes qui cunctorum auxilio destituti sunt sint sub procuracione et proteccione domini regis in regno suo ubi sunt vel assidue esse debent. Et ideo jure concedit quod si aliquid ab eis furatur et postea probator aliquis reperiatur qui furtum vult probare is furem nominabit coram testibus idoneis super sanctum altare eo modo quo mos est in Scocia et jurabit verum esse quod affirmat de prefato fure et restauretur quod furatum est ac si proprium regis esset. Et si concedendo veraciter confirmaverit quod ab eis sine lege et judicio per vim aliquid abstulit reddat quod abstulit et regi octo vaccas pro transgressione emendet.”—(Ass. R. David 30.) Again-" De ponderibus in emendo et vendendo. Statutum est a rege David ut commune et equale pondus (quod dicitur pondus Cathanie) in emendo et vendendo omnes homines.

in tota Scocia custodiant. Divina namque lex precipit dicens non habebis in sacculo tuo diversa pondera majus et minus nec erit in domo tua modius major et minor sed pondus habebis justum. Si quis contra decretum divine legis aliquod inequale pondus sibi usurpaverit regie justicie octo vaccas emendet pro transgressione."-(Ass. R. David 31.)

After the laws which indicate the personal character of King David fall to be noted certain others which relate to constitutional matters. The principle, valued as an ancient maxim of the law of England, namely, that a man must be tried by his peers, is no less distinctly enunciated as an institution in the ancient laws of Scotland. No one was obliged to receive sentence, or to be judged by a person of inferior rank to himself, so that an earl should suffer judgment from none less than an earl (comes per comitem), baro per baronem, vavasor per vavasorem; but the person of less degree might be tried by the greater (Ass. R. David, 1. 5). The principle is older than the separate functions of a jury, to which constituent of a court of justice it has come to be in modern times applied. Another familiar principle meets us in the prohibition against provosts or bailies of a town to meddle with the pleas pertaining to the Crown, unless by special commission from the Justiciar. Quoniam talis appellacio et responsio ad judicium coram justiciario vel ejus certo actornato debet fieri (Ass. R. David, 12). This law indicates a fact of which we should otherwise be well assured, namely, that the expression pleas pertaining to the Crown, referred to in Magna Charta, is one whose meaning had been well understood and fixed at a date much earlier than that great monument of the liberties of England. The provision of the great charter on this head is more comprehen sive. It is that "No sheriff, constable, coroner, or other our bailiffs, shall hold pleas of the Crown." I am not aware whether at this early date in Scotland sheriffs or barons were prohibited from holding pleas of the crown. Neither is it very easy to gather what crimes at this early period came within this category. If it be true, as English writers assert (Reeves' Hist. of Eng. Law, vol. I, p. 281), that at the time of Magna Charta the crimes of theft, forgery, coining, as well as treason, murder, manslaughter, robbery, and other graver crimes were considered to be among the pleas of the crown, it is clear that the jurisdiction of inferior judges in Scotland in criminal matters was never restricted within the bounds assigned to it by the "ancient liberties" of England.

in

It seems probable that the category of "pleas of the crown our early laws was borrowed from the language of some of the ancient charters of the English kings; but it may be doubted whether in our early practice the distinction really obtained any very extensive recognition. Indeed, there is one provision among these laws which expressly extends the jurisdiction of the barons in an important criminal matter, namely, by enacting that those barons who had the power of furca and fossa in the case of theft, given by their charters, should also have the power of a capital sentence in cases of homicide. And it was provided that after open accusation and defence made in their courts the case should not be compromised without leave of the king (Ass. R. David, 13).

If little care was taken to limit the authority of inferior judges within the local bounds of their jurisdiction, these local bounds were, on the other hand, strictly defined, and there was an express prohibition made against a practice whereby under pretence of acting on the king's service it seems that sheriff's used sometimes to execute warrants without the bounds of their commission (Ass. R. David, 10). A person living within one sheriffdom wishing to poind the goods of a person living in another sheriffdom must first obtain the leave of the sheriff of that shire, and proceed to execute his diligence with the assistance of that sheriff or his bailiff (Ass. R. David, 22). And no one could poind the goods of another within the lands of any one without the leave of the lord or baron of those lands (Ass. R. David, 23). There appears reason to believe that the original course of every plaint of personal wrong, whether criminal or civil, with the exception of some grave matters, called, as before-mentioned, pleas pertaining to the crown, lay, in the first place, within the jurisdiction of the barons, from whence they might be appealed to the sheriff, from whom, in the last place, lay the appeal to the aula regis, or supreme court of the king himself. It is certain that under the legislation of King David all persons were prohibited from bringing their causes (with the exceptions already mentioned) into the king's court unless they had, in the first place, been brought before the sheriff's or baron's court (Ass. R. David, 24). That the sheriff's jurisdiction was in certain cases appellate from, or supplementary to that of the baron's may be inferred from passages in Glanville and the Regiam Magistatem; and it is very probable that in the time of David their jurisdiction was called into requi