Note 35 — THE EARL OF WARWICK

Benefit of clergy was originally the right of the clergy to be exempt from the jurisdiction of the lay courts, and to be handed over to the ordinary to make 'purgation.' This the accused clerk did by swearing to his own innocence and producing twelve compurgators who swore to the same effect. He was then 'usually acquitted' by a jury of twelve clerks; but otherwise he was degraded and put to penance. The right itself was gradually restricted: partly by a construction of the Statute of Westminster the First (1275), by which it was held to be necessary that the clerk should be indicted before he could claim his benefit; partly by the practice prevailing in the time of Henry VI. that he must first be convicted. Meanwhile its scope had been largely increased by its extension in 1360 to all lay clerks, who were taken to mean persons capable of reading. The law, however, which was applicable to the present case depended on two statutes, 4 Henry VII., c. 13, and 18 Elizabeth, c. 7; by the former any person allowed his clergy was to be branded, and was not to be allowed it again unless he was actually in orders; by the latter purgation was abolished, and any person taking benefit of clergy was to be discharged from prison subject to the power of the judge to imprison him for a year. By a statute of Edward VI. also, a peer ('though he cannot read') was allowed a privilege equivalent to benefit of clergy, but was not to be branded.

A certain number of offences were excluded from benefit of clergy during earlier times, and a great number during the eighteenth century, at the beginning of which the privilege was extended to all prisoners. Finally, the system was abolished in 1827. How this system, occupying as it did an important position in the criminal procedure of this country till a comparatively modern date, impresses a lawyer of the present day, may best be described in the words of Sir James Stephen:—'Of this branch of the law, Blackstone characteristically remarks that the English legislature "in the course of a long and laborious process, extracted by noble alchemy rich medicines out of poisonous ingredients." According to our modern views it would be more correct to say that the rule and the exception were in their origin equally crude and barbarous, that by a long series of awkward and intricate changes they were at last worked into a system which was abolished in a manner as clumsy as that in which it was constructed' (History of the Criminal Law, vol. i. p. 458).... 'The result of this was to bring about, for a great length of time, a state of things which must have reduced the administration of justice to a sort of farce. Till 1487 any one who knew how to read might commit murder as often as he pleased, with no other result, than that of being delivered to the ordinary to make his purgation, with the chance of being delivered to him absque purgatione. That this should have been the law for several centuries seems hardly credible, but there is no doubt that it was. Even after 1487, a man who could read could commit murder once with no other punishment than that of having M. branded on the brawn of his left thumb, and if he was a clerk in orders he could, till 1547, commit any number of murders apparently without being branded more than once' (Ibid., vol. i. p. 462).