The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1867-05-07
WHAT is MARTIAL LAW?

In his recent charge to the jury in the case of
Colonel Nelson and Lieutenant Brand, indicted
Tor the murder OF Mr. Gordon, in Jamaica, Chief
Justice Cock burn discussed at great length the
history of martial law in England. He protessed
himself shocked and alarmed at the loose detini-
tons which are commonly received, and
thought 1t high time that they were brought to
the test of q judicial Interpretation. He con-
tended that there is broad distinction to be
made at the outstart between rebel in arms
and civilian who becomes in any way ame.
nable to martial law. The trial of the Earl of
Lancaster, in the reign OF Edward II, was not
case of martial law, although irregular. There
may be some doubt about the Wat Tyler lnsur-
gents, IN the reign OF Richard ii, but it was
thought necessary to obtain an act of indemnity.
In the reigns OF Henry lV and Henry vi there
were frequent irregular executions, but the first
instance OF martial law, in its modern sense,
was the prosecution after the battle of Stoke,
OF the wealthy adherents of the Sinnel rebellion.
Henry VII, however, wanted money much more
than blood, and very few were executed. The
trials were illegal throughout. The rebellion was
suppressed, and ''it was certain that you could
not bring men to trial under martial law after
rebellion had been suppressed"
In the reign of Edward VI the disaffeCted
were in the habit OF raising the villages by the
sound of church bells, and according to pro-
clamation contained in ''Suype's Ecclesiastical
Memorials this attempt to muster men IN arms
was forbidden under pain of death, to be exc
cuted by the authority of law martial, whereby
no delay should be permitted as in other cases.
This was a strong proclamation, but it was
entirely ultra Ulres Tor the Crown TO have dealt
with these otienses otherwise than by act of
Parliament" Again, in 1549, according to
SIype, lordlieutenants in various counties
were empowered to exercise martial law. In
1862 there was proclamation OF the same kind.
Lord Hale said that such proclamations were
often issued IN teTTOreHl poputi, without any
intention of carrying them into effect.
Another proclamation was issued in the reign
OF Queen Mary in which martial law was threat
ened against those who imported heretcal
works, and if Hume was to be believed, this
example was followed by Queen Elizabeth, who
proclaimed that those who imported bulls or
traitorous works from Rome should be punished
with death under martial law. Again, upon
representation from the citizens of London con-
cerning appTeheDded riots, the Queen issued
commission authorizing the establishment of
martial law and the execution under II OF all
rioters, and declaring, with an extraordinary
stretch of assumed power, that persons VINO
were leading vaPrant lives, and could not give
a good account of themselves, should be hung
up. This was an entirely unconstitutional
James | and Charles issued commissions for
courts martial, but the Petition Of Right pro-
nounced these commissions unlawful, and
solemDly asserted that no English subject was
to be subjected to martial law.
The doctrine has never since been contra
dicted in practice.
The Chief Justice added, that having exa.
mined every instance in English history in
which martial law had been referred to or pro-
claimed, he could find no such thing as martial
law used for the purpose Of putting down re:
bellion, He was therefore utterly astonished
talking about martial law in an easy familiar
way as thing perfectly understood and set
tied in England, when, in truth, II had never
been resorted to or exercised.