about the country begging without a pass, he was hanged. And these barbarous laws were relentlessly carried into execution. A boy only ten yars old was sentenced to death in 1816." It is owing to Sir Samuel Romilly, and later to Sir James Mackintosh, that the death penalty is now imposed in England for only four offences, and very rarely in two of those. Similar, and in some States, even greater changes have been made in this country. A traitor was drawn on a hurdle to the place of execution, was hung by the neck but cut down alive and his bowels were taken out and burnt before his face, then his head was severed and his body divided into four quar ters and placed over the gates of cities to poison the atmosphere. Not until 1870 were these horrid requirements abrogated by stat ute and they were pronounced, though not carried out, on Frost the Chartist, as latt as 1839. You all remember how, on the restoration, the body of the greatest sover eign England has ever had, was dug from his grave and his head was exposed on Temple Bar. These were not the doings of Chinese Boxers, but of enlightened Christian Eng land. Just about the beginning of the nine teenth century the punishment of women for high treason, which till then was by burning, was changed to hanging. In 1811 Lord Eldon was greatly alarmed by "a dangerous bill," as he termed it, which abolished capi tal punishment for stealing five shillings in a shop and prided himself greatly upon de feating this revolutionary measure in the House of Lords. In 1812 when Bellingham was put on trial for the murder of Spencer Perceval, he was informed that one charged iû a capital offense vas not allowed to have counsel to speak for him and he had to defend himself. You will remember that the humane law in England not only pro hibited argument by counsel to one on trial for his life, but he could neither have process to summon witnesses in his own behalf, nor was he allowed to cross examine the wit nesses against him. Bellingham shot Mr. Perceval, the prime minister, late on Mon day, May 11 : he was put on trial Friday, the
1 5th, and was hanged the following Monday, the 18th, and his body was ordered to be dis sected. When the law in the above particu lars was somewhat modified in 1836, twelve out of the fifteen judges protested, and one of them wrote a letter to Sir John Campbell, then attorney general, that if he allowed the bill to pass he would resign. The bill passed, but the learned judge did not resign. Juries- were not allowed to separate on trnls for felonies or treason, and were locked up "without meat, drink or fire." This produced the poet's taunt "and wretches hang, that jurymen may dine." This law was not changed till 1870. WHAT the rights are of an employé against employers' blacklists is still an open ques tion in Pennsylvania, says Rupert Sargen: Molland, in the December American Law Register; and he adds: The question is therefore still an open one in Pennsylvania. Where no formal blacklist appears and the communication is of a purely personal nature, there being no combination capable of being demonstrated, the employé would seem to have no right of action. Where the blacklist or the equivalent exists, the Pennsylvania courts would probably follow Massachusetts and deny an injunction, though they might very possibly allow an ac tion for damages. This latter view, that the employe deserves such protection, would seem to be slowly gaining ground, as evi denced by the fact that four States have at a comparatively recent date made the forma tion of blacklisting combinations punishable as misdemeanors. IN a scholarly article on "Specific Per formance for and against Strangers to the Contract," in the Harvard Law Rci-inv for January, Professor J. B. Ames of the Har vard Law School, states the principles on which "the passing of the benefit and burden of restrictive agreements" rest. He says: In truth, the passing oí the benefit and burden of restrictive agreements is not to
