Popular Law. bastinadoed, or thrown into a dungeon? You have only to name the sentence, and I will pronounce it." The Englishmen decided in favor of scourging. "Bring in the pris oners," exclaimed the Cadi; and now for the first time those unhappy men were intro duced into the court. " You are convicted," said the magistrate in his sternest tones, "of robbing these honorable Englishmen. It is intolerable that this kind of lawless ness should prevail, and you are sentenced to be scourged." In a moment the prisoners were stripped and the punishment began. "Stop! " exclaimed one of the Englishmen, "those are not the men!" "My dear friend," replied the Cadi, while the scourging continued merrily, " of course they are not the men. But they will do very well. It is perfectly impossible for us to catch the scoundrels who robbed you; but it is neces sary, in the interests of justice, that somebody should be punished for such offences, if only to bring home to the minds of the real rob bers the kind of sentence that would be passed upon them if they were really caught." This theory of the scapegoat seems to have been almost instinctive with all peoples and at all times. In cases of doubt it insures that every offence shall be followed by an adequate punishment. If the offender can be punished, so much the better; if not, a " whipping boy " or scape goat must be punished instead. It is a curious idea, and very repugnant to enlight ened modern thought; but it lingers on in unwritten popular codes of law, as may be gathered from the free and easy way in which mobs are wont to wreak their ven geance on the innocent when they are unable to touch the guilty. Mob law is the law of passion and emotion. "I hate you; I never hate without good reason; therefore you are bad and ought consequently to be punished," — this is its fundamental precept, and, mutatis mutandis, we may put "love" for "hate." But this kind of argument is not confined to localized mobs merely; there is the rabble rout of
499
sentimentalists who find in certain newspayers (which shall be nameless) a common rallying-ground. These men are fond of talking of the " Spirit of the Age." They would condemn the advocates of Lynch law; they would despise a judge who was not im partial; but they think that in appealing to the Zeit-Geist, or Spirit of the Age, they are taking up a quite unexceptionable position. Now, the Spirit of the Age is nothing more than the emotions of Brown, Jones, and Robinson, the aforesaid sentimentalists, when they find that the law says one thing and they desire another. If a pretty woman is condemned to be hanged, Brown, Jones, and Robinson scream in chorus that hanging women is opposed to the Spirit of the Age. But if an ugly old hag is sentenced to death, these worthy gentlemen read the account of her execution with complacent satisfaction. Our modern praetors, the Home Secretaries, are always getting into hot water because they fail properly to interpret this vague and shifting spirit; but the petitions and deputa tions with which they are pestered during periods of excitement are really nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to revert to emotional or mob law. "Is it not lawful for me to do what I like with my own? " is a question that is very often asked by persons not accustomed to "exact thought." A man's wife is his own; therefore he may beat her. A man's house is his own; therefore he may make it a nui sance to his neighbors. A man's life is his own; therefore he may take it. These are some of the deductions which are made every day from the above maxim of popular law. And we find even well educated per sons drawing conclusions hardly less valid than those given above. Thus it is the commonest thing for women who have jilted their adorers to endeavor to retain the house hold goods given them in contemplation of marriage. So, too, a man who has attached "fixtures" to the house he rents will often loudly bemoan his fate at not being allowed to remove them when he goes into fresh
