, 1888-09-04
A CHAPTER ON EARS.
People Who We're Punished Long Ago by
Having Their Hearers Removed.

People Who Were Punished Long Ago by
Having Their Hearers Removed.
Any mutilation of the ear which in
volved the loss of a portion or all of it
has always been a mark of disgrace. In
one of the statutes of Edward VI the
penalty affixed for its violation is the
Gloss of an ear and perpetual infamy."
In those days the celluloid ear had not
been invented and the loss of one of these
members was a public badge of shame
for life.
Following the r~etributive law of Moses,
probably the punishment originated in
the ecclesiastical courts. 1t is first men
toned in the trials of offenses against the
church and some of the earless clericals
were noted men. The sentence to the
pillory frequently had the additional pun
ishment of the loss of one or both ears
added. Daniel Fooe, or Foe, later in life
known as Daniel Defoe, wrote a pamph-
let called ''The Shortest Way with the
Dissenters," and lost his ears. Pope, in
his ''Dunciad, speaks of the author of
Robinson Crusoe:" "Earless on high
stood unabashed Defoe."
He was placed in the pillory three
times. That instrument being on a raised
platform explains the line. In Defoe's
case, however, as in many others, his
punishment was rather a martyrdom,
and lifted him in the esteem of those
who believed as he did.
DR.. Bastwick, who published moro
pamphlets than pills, concludes one of
his essays with: 'From plague, pestilence
and famine, from bishops, priests and
deacons, good Lord deliver u.s." This
was so serious an affront that the doctor
was sentenced to the pillory and to lose
both his ears. The execution of his sen.
tence was a sort of public fete. His
friends gathered before the pillory and
shouted words of encouragement. His
wife climbed upon the pillory and kissed
him.. When his ears were cut off ''she
put them in a clean handkerchief and
carried them home. The celebrated
Prynne suffered a similar punishment.
The names of lesser criminals have
escaped the permanent records, but
Blackstone mentions a number of early
English parliamentary enactments max
ing thel loss OF an ear a penalty in law.
Fighting in a church or churchyard by
acts passed during the fifth and sixth
years of the reign Of Edward vi meant
the loss of both ears. If the prisoner
had no ears-which implies that there
were habitual criminals $50 years ago
he was to be branded with the letter
F in the cheek. In the second and third
year of the same monarch combinations
among victualers and artificers to raise
the price of provisions or the rate of
labor for the third offense was punished
by the pillory and the loss of an ear.
The statute not only extended to the
combinations to raise wages, but to reg
ulate the quantity of work or to lessen
the hours of labor. In this degenerate
age the trusts and other combines, with
the different labor unions, if these laws
were enforced. would give the public
executioner active employment.
In later years the loss of an ear or part
of one has also been regarded as imply
ing disgrace. The ear is not easily lost.
Any accident that destroys the ear
usually destroys the person wearing it.
One of the faVorite ways of mutilating
an enemy in a rough and tumble fight is
to bite off his ear. In disreputable brawls
and in low resorts brute instinct makes
ear mutilation a fit revenge for almost
any wrong. Jack Slade, the notorious
desperate, in a fit of rage, is said to have
cut off the ears of a man he had muir
dered. He kept them in his pocket and
boastfully exhibited them when in a
drunken and dangerous mood. When
he saw on the poker table a stake he
wanted particularly Jack played the ears.
Flinging them on the table they beat four
aces or a straight flush, for Jack had a
pistol in each hand the next instant. He
always took the pot on the play.-Chi-
cage News.