Chapter II: MODERN CONFESSIONS OF FAITH.--The second great creed-making epoch of (10)

_The Invasion of the Crimea._--The primary object of the war had thus easily been obtained. But Great Britain and France were by no means content with a triumph that left untouched the vast resources of an enemy who was certain to employ them at the next opportunity. The two nations felt that Sevastopol, the home of the Black Sea fleet, the port whence Admiral Nachimov had sailed for Sinope, must be crippled for some years at least, and as early as June 29th Lord Raglan and Marshal Saint Arnaud, the allied commanders of England and France, had received instructions to "concert measures for the siege of Sevastopol." Dynastic considerations reinforced the arguments of policy and popular opinion in the case of France; in Great Britain soldier and civilian alike saw the menace of a Russian Mediterranean fleet in the unfinished forts and busy dockyards. The popular strategy for once coincided with the views of the responsible leaders. Yet there is no sign that either the commanders on the spot or their governments realized the magnitude of the undertaking. Few but the most urgently necessary preparations were made, and cholera, breaking out virulently amongst the French at this time, reduced the army at Varna, and even the fleet at sea, to impotence. The troops were so weakened that, even in September, the five-mile march from camp to transport exhausted most of the men. Heavy weather still further delayed the start, and it was not until the 7th of September that the expedition began to cross the Black Sea. One hundred and fifty war-vessels and transports conveyed the army, which, guarded on all sides by the fighting fleet, crossed without incident and drew up on the Crimean coast on September 13th. Tactical considerations prevailed in the choice of place. The landlocked harbours south of Sevastopol were for the time being neglected, and a spot known as Old Fort preferred, because the long beach, the heavy metal of the ships' broadsides, and a line of lagoons covering the front offered singularly favourable conditions for the delicate operation of disembarkation. Still, on this side of Sevastopol there was no good harbour, and it is quite open to question whether in this case the strategic necessities of the situation were not neglected in favour of purely tactical and temporary advantages. As a matter of fact no opposition was offered to the landing, but the weather prevented the disembarkation being completed until the 18th. St Arnaud and Raglan had at this time under their orders 51,000 British, French and Turkish infantry, 1000 British cavalry, and 128 guns, and on the 19th this force (less some detachments) began the southward march in order of battle, the British (who alone had their cavalry present) on the exposed left flank, the French next the sea, the fleet moving in the same direction parallel to the troops.

_The Alma._--Old Fort was beyond the reach of Menshikov, the Russian commander, but, as the fortress communicated with the interior of Russia via Kerch and Simferopol, it was to be expected that he would either accept battle on the Sevastopol road, or cover Simferopol by a flank attack on Lord Raglan. Both these contingencies were provided for by the order of march, and in due course it was ascertained that the Russians adopted the former alternative, and barred the Sevastopol road on the heights of the river Alma. Menaced by the guns of the fleet, Menshikov had wheeled back his left, and at the same time he strengthened his right in order to cover the Simferopol road. From this it followed naturally that the brunt of the attack fell upon the British divisions, whilst the French, nearer the sea, struck to some extent _dans le vide_. The two commanders, after a reconnaissance, decided upon their plan. The French divisions in echelon from the right were to cross the river and force Menshikov inwards, whilst the British were to move straight to their front against the strongest part of the Russian line. Substantially this plan was carried out on the 20th of September. Owing to want of men (he had but 36,400 against over 50,000) Menshikov was unable to hold his left wing very strongly, and the French were scarcely checked save by physical obstacles; but opposite the British force the ground sloped glacis-wise up to the Russian line, and nothing but their iron discipline, the best heritage of the Peninsular War, brought them victorious to the crest of Kurghane hill. The Russians had no option but to retreat, which they did without molestation. The allies lost about 3000 men, mostly British (though Prince Napoleon's men also suffered heavily); the Russians reported 5709 casualties.

_The March on Sevastopol._--On the 23rd of September the advance was resumed, and by the 25th Sevastopol was in full view of the allied outposts. It was now that the necessary consequences of the choice of Old Fort as the landing-place presented themselves as a problem for instant solution. Whatever chance there had been of assaulting the north side of Sevastopol was now gone. Menshikov had sacrificed some ships in order to seal up the harbour mouth, and naval co-operation in attack was now impossible, while the other Russian ships could in safety aid the defenders with their heavy guns. A siege, based on the beach of Old Fort or the open roads of Kacha, was out of the question, as was re-embarkation for a fresh landing. There remained only a flank march by Mackenzie's farm and the river Chernaya. Once established on the south side, the allies could use the excellent harbours of Kamiesh and Balaklava; this could almost certainly be effected without fighting, while in besieging Sevastopol itself and not merely the north side, the allies would be striking at the heart. But a flank march is almost always in itself a hazardous undertaking, and in this case the invaders were required further to abandon their line of retreat on Old Fort. In point of fact, the army, covered by a division opposite the Russian works, successfully accomplished the task. At the same moment Menshikov, after providing for the defence of Sevastopol, had marched out with a field army towards Bakhchiserai, and on the 25th of September each army, without knowing it, actually crossed the other's front. On arrival at Balaklava the allies regained contact with the fleet, and the detachment left on the north side, its mission being at an end, followed the same route and rejoined the main body. The French now took possession of Kamiesh, the British of Balaklava.

_Beginning of the Siege._--Thus secured, the allies closed upon the south side of the fortress. A siege corps was formed, and the British army and General Bosquet's French corps covered its operations against interruption from the Russian field army. The harbour of Sevastopol, formed by the estuary of the Chernaya, was protected against attack by sea not only by the Russian war-vessels, afloat and sunken, but also by heavy granite forts on the south side and by the works which had defied the allies on the north. For the town itself and the Karabelnaya suburb the trace of the works had been laid down for years. The Malakoff, a great tower of stone, covered the suburb, flanked on either side by the Redan and the Little Redan. The town was covered by a line of works marked by the Flagstaff and central bastions, and separated from the Redan by the inner harbour. Lieut.-Col. Todleben, the Russian chief engineer, had very early begun work on these sites, and daily re-creating, rearming and improving the fortifications, finally connected them by a continuous enceinte. Yet Sevastopol was not, early in October 1854, the towering fortress it afterwards became, and Todleben himself maintained that, had the allies immediately assaulted, they would have succeeded in taking the place. There were, however, many reasons against so decided a course, and it was not until the 17th of October that the first attack took place. All that day a tremendous artillery duel raged. The French siege corps lost heavily and its guns were overpowered. The fleet engaged the harbour batteries close inshore, and suffered a loss of 500 men, besides severe damage to the ships. On the other hand the British siege batteries silenced the Malakoff and its annexes, and, if failure had not occurred at the other points of attack, an assault might have succeeded. As it was, Todleben, by daybreak, had repaired and improved the damaged works. Meanwhile General Canrobert had succeeded St Arnaud (who died on the 29th of September) in the joint leadership of the allies. It was not long before Menshikov and the now augmented field army from Bakhchiserai appeared on the Chernaya and moved towards the Balaklava lines and the British base.

_Balaklava._--A long line of works on the upland secured the siege corps from interference, and the Balaklava lines themselves were strong, but the low Vorontsov ridge between the two was weakly held, and here the Russian commander hoped to sever the line of communications. On the 25th of October Liprandi's corps carried its slight redoubts at the first rush. But the British cavalry stationed at the foot of the upland was situated on their flank, and as the Russian cavalry moved towards Kadikoi, the "Heavy Brigade" under General Scarlett charged home with such effect that Menshikov's troopers only rallied behind their field batteries near Traktir bridge. At the same time some of the Russian squadrons, coming upon the British 93rd regiment outside the Balaklava lines, were completely broken by the steady volleys of the "thin red line." The "Light Brigade" of British cavalry, farther north, had hitherto remained inactive, even when the Russians, broken by the "Heavies," fled across their front. The cavalry commander, Lord Lucan, now received orders to prevent the withdrawal of the guns taken by Liprandi. The aide-de-camp who carried the order was killed by the first shell, and the whole question of responsibility for what followed is wrapped in obscurity. Lord Cardigan led the Light Brigade straight at the Russian field batteries, behind which the enemy's squadrons had re-formed. From the guns in front, on the Fedukhin heights, and on the captured ridge to their right, the advancing squadrons at once met a deadly converging fire, but the gallant troopers nevertheless reached the guns and cut down the artillerymen. Small parties even charged the cavalry behind, and at least two unbroken squadrons struck out right and left with success, but the combat could only end in one way. The 4th Chasseurs d'Afrique relieved the British left by a dashing charge. The "Heavies" made as if to advance, but came under such a storm of fire that they were withdrawn. By twos and threes the gallant survivors of the "Light Brigade" made their way back. Two-thirds of its numbers were left on the field, and the day closed with the Russians still in possession of the Vorontsov ridge.

_Inkerman._--If the heights lost in this action were not absolutely essential to the safety of the allies, the point selected for the next attempt at relief was of vital importance. The junction of the covering army and the siege corps near Inkerman was the scene of a slight action on the day following Balaklava, and the battle of Inkerman followed on the 5th of November. By that time the French had made good the losses of the 17th of October, their approaches were closing upon Flagstaff bastion, and the British batteries daily maintained their superiority over the Malakoff. On the 5th there was to have been a meeting of generals to fix the details of an assault, but at dawn the Russian army, now heavily reinforced from Odessa, was attacking with the utmost fury the British divisions guarding the angle between Bosquet and the siege corps. The battle of Inkerman defies description; every regiment, every group of men bore its own separate part in the confused and doubtful struggle, save when leaders on either side obtained a momentary control over its course by means of reserves which, carrying all before them with their original impetus, soon served but to swell the melee. It was a "soldiers' battle" pure and simple. After many hours of the most desperate fighting the arrival of Bosquet (hitherto contained by a force on the Balaklava ground) confirmed a success won by supreme tenacity against overwhelming odds, and Menshikov sullenly drew off his men, leaving over 12,000 on the field. The allies had lost about 3300 men, of whom more than two-thirds belonged to the small British force on which the strain of the battle fell heaviest. Their losses included several generals who could ill be spared, but they had held their ground, which was all that was required of them, with almost unrivalled tenacity. Lord Raglan was promoted to be field marshal after the battle.

_The Winter of 1854-1855._--It was now obvious that the army must winter in the Crimea, and preparations in view of this were begun betimes. But on the night of November 14th a violent storm arose which wrecked nearly thirty vessels with their precious cargoes of treasure, medical comforts, forage, clothing and other necessaries. After so grave a calamity it was to be expected that the troops would be called upon to undergo great hardships. But the direct cause of sufferings that have become a byword for the utmost depths of misery was the loss of twenty days' forage in the great storm. Of food and clothing enough was in store to tide over temporary difficulties, but the only paved road from Balaklava to the British camps was now in Russian hands, and the few starving transport animals were utterly inadequate for the work of drawing wagons over the miry plain; things went from bad to worse with Raglan's troops, until from the outposts before the Redan to the hospitals at Scutari a state of the utmost misery prevailed, relieved only by the example of devotion and self-sacrifice set by officers and men. The British hospital returns showed eight thousand sick at the end of November. Even the French, whose base of Kamiesh had escaped the storm, were not unhurt by the severity of the winter, but Napoleon III. sent freely all the men his general asked, while the Russians in Sevastopol, who had made long painful marches from the interior, were the survivors of the fittest. Canrobert took over the lines before the Malakoff to relieve the British. He had at the end of January 1855 78,000 men for duty; Raglan could barely muster 12,000. But, with the advent of spring, paved roads and a railway were promptly taken in hand, and during the remainder of the war the British troops were so well cared for that their death-rate was lower than at home, while the hospitals in rear, thanks to the energy and devotion of Florence Nightingale and her nurses, became models of good management.

_Course of the Siege._--Meanwhile the siege works were making but slow progress, and the fortress grew day by day under the skilful direction of Todleben. Rifle-pits pushed out in front of the defenders' lines were connected so as to form a veritable envelope. Beyond the left wing a new line, the "White Works," sprang up in a single night, and the hill of the Mamelon was suddenly crowned with a lunette to cover the still defiant Malakoff. But the absence of bomb-proof cover exposed the huge working parties necessary for these defences to an almost incessant _feu d'enfer_, by which the Russians every week suffered the losses of a pitched battle. Meanwhile the field army was idle, Menshikov had been replaced by Prince Michael Gorchakov, Liprandi's corps had withdrawn from the Vorontsov ridge, and Omar Pasha, with a detachment of the troops he had led at Oltenitza and Cetatea, repulsed a Russian attack on Eupatoria (Feb. 17th). The besiegers steadily approached the White Works, Mamelon, Redan and Flagstaff bastion, and as spring arrived the logistic and material advantages of the allies returned. On Easter Sunday (April 8th, 1855) another terrific bombardment began, which lasted almost uninterruptedly for ten days. The White Works and the Mamelon were practically destroyed, and the Russians, drawn up in momentary expectation of assault, lost between six and seven thousand men.

But the bombardment ceased, and assault did not follow. For, at the allied headquarters and at Paris, grave differences of opinion on the conduct of the war had developed. Napoleon III. wished active operations to be undertaken against the Simferopol field army, whereas the leaders on the spot, while admitting the theoretical soundness of the French emperor's views, considered that they were wholly beyond the means of the two armies. The discussions culminated in Canrobert's resignation of the chief command, though he would not leave the army, and took a subordinate post, which he filled with great distinction to the end of the war. His successor, General Pelissier, was a soldier trained in the hard school of Algerian warfare, and endowed, as was soon evident, with the most inflexible resolution of character. He did not hesitate to take up and maintain a position of decided opposition to his sovereign's views; and the capture of Kerch (24th May 1855), carried out by a joint expedition, was the first earnest of new vigour in the operations. This success served all the purposes of a complete investment of Sevastopol, the want of which had greatly troubled the allied generals. The line of communication and supply between Sevastopol and the interior was cut, vast stores intended for the fortress were destroyed, and the sea of Azov was cleared of shipping. On the 25th Canrobert established himself on the Fedukhin heights, his right continued along the Chernaya by General la Marmora's newly arrived Sardinians, 15,000 strong, while masses of Turks occupied the Vorontsov ridge and the old Balaklava battlefield.

As June approached, Raglan and Pelissier, who, unlike most allied commanders, were in complete accord and sympathy, initiated very vigorous methods of attack. They decided that the works west of Flagstaff could be comparatively neglected, and the full weight of the bombardment once more fell upon the Mamelon and the Malakoff. Once more these works were reduced to ruins, but the rest of the defences still held out.

_The Assault of the Redan._--On the 7th of June 1855 the French stormed the Mamelon and the White Works, the British captured and maintained some quarries close to the Redan, and next morning the whole of Todleben's envelope had become a siege-parallel. The losses were, as usual, heavy, 8500 to the Russians, 6883 to the allies. This was merely a preliminary to the great assault fixed for the 18th, the fortieth anniversary of Waterloo. But meanwhile Pelissier's temper and Raglan's health had been strained to breaking-point by continued dissensions with Paris and London. The telegraph, a new strategic factor, daily tormented the unfortunate commanders with the latest ideas of the Paris strategists, and on the fateful day the two armies rushed on to failure. The French attack on the Malakoff dwindled away into a meaningless fire-fight: the British, attacking the Redan in face of a cross-fire of one hundred heavy guns, at first succeeded in entering the work, but in the end sustained a bloody and disastrous repulse. Of the six generals who led the two attacks, four were killed and one wounded, and on the 17th and 18th the losses to the Russians were 5400, to the allies 4000. But the defenders' resources were almost at an end, and the bombardment reopened at once with increased fury. On the 20th Todleben was wounded, and soon afterwards Nakhimov, the victor of Sinope, found a grave by the side of three other admirals who had fallen in the defence. Pelissier resolutely clung to his plans, in spite of the failure of the 18th, against ever-increasing opposition at home. Raglan, worn out by his troubles and heartbroken at the Redan failure, died on the 28th, mourned by none more deeply than by his stern colleague.

_The Storming of the Malakoff._--During July the Russians lost on an average 250 men a day, and at last it was decided that Gorchakov and the field army must make another attack at the Chernaya--the first since Inkerman. On the 16th of August the corps of Generals Liprandi and Read furiously attacked the 37,000 French and Sardinian troops on the heights above Traktir Bridge. The assailants came on with the greatest determination, but the result was never for one moment doubtful. At the end of the day the Russians drew off baffled, leaving 260 officers and 8000 men on the field. The allies only lost 1700. With this defeat vanished the last chance of saving Sevastopol. On the same day (Aug. 16th) the bombardment once more reduced the Malakoff and its dependencies to impotence, and it was with absolute confidence in the result that Pelissier planned the final assault. On the 8th of September 1855 at noon, the whole of Bosquet's corps suddenly swarmed up to the Malakoff. The fighting was of the most desperate kind. Every casemate, every traverse, was taken and retaken time after time, but the French maintained the prize, and though the British attack on the Redan once more failed, the Russians crowded in that work became at once the helpless target of the siege guns. Even on the far left, opposite Flagstaff and Central bastions, there was severe hand-to-hand fighting, and throughout the day the bombardment mowed down the Russian masses along the whole line. The fall of the Malakoff was the end of the siege. All night the Russians were filing over the bridges to the north side, and on the 9th the victors took possession of the empty and burning prize. The losses in the last assault had been very heavy, to the allies over 10,000 men, to the Russians 13,000. No less than nineteen generals had fallen on that day. But the crisis was surmounted. With the capture of Sevastopol the war loses its absorbing interest. No serious operations were undertaken against Gorchakov, who with the field army and the remnant of the garrison held the heights at Mackenzie's Farm. But Kinburn was attacked by sea, and from the naval point of view the attack is interesting as being the first instance of the employment of ironclads. An armistice was agreed upon on the 26th of February and the definitive peace of Paris was signed on the 30th of March 1856.

_Decisive Importance of the Victory._--The importance of the siege of Sevastopol, from the strategical point of view, lies beneath the surface. It may well be asked, why did the fall of a place, at first almost unfortified, bring the master of the Russian empire to his knees? At first sight Russia would seem to be almost invulnerable to a sea power, and no first success, however crushing, could have humbled Nicholas I. Indeed the capture of Sevastopol in October 1854 would have been far from decisive of the war, but once the tsar had decided to defend to the last this arsenal, the necessity for which he was in the best position to appreciate, the factor of unlimited resources operated in the allies' favour. The sea brought to the invaders whatever they needed, whilst the desert tracks of southern Russia were marked at every step with the corpses of men and horses who had fallen on the way to Sevastopol. The hasty nature, too, of the fortifications, which, daily crushed by the fire of a thousand guns, had to be re-created every night, made huge and therefore unprotected working parties necessary, and the losses were correspondingly heavy. The double cause of loss completely exhausted even Russia's resources, and, when large bodies of militia appeared in line of battle at Traktir Bridge, it was obvious that the end was at hand. The novels of Tolstoy give a graphic picture of the war from the Russian point of view; the miseries of the desert march, the still greater miseries of life in the casemates, and the almost daily ordeal of manning the lines under shell-fire to meet an assault that might or might not come; and no student of the siege can leave it without feeling the profoundest respect for the courage, discipline and stubborn loyalty of the defenders.

_Minor Operations._--A few words may be added on the minor operations of the war. The Asiatic frontier was the scene of severe fighting between the Turks and the Russians. Hindered at first by Shamyl and his Caucasian mountaineers, the Russians stood on the defensive during 1853, but next year they took the offensive, and, while their coast column won an action on the 16th of June at the river Churuk, another force from Erivan gained an important success on the Araxes and took Bayazid, and General Bebutov completely defeated a Turkish column from Kars at Kuruk Dere (July 31st, 1854). Next year Count Muraviev completely isolated the garrison of Kars, which made a magnificent defence, inspired by Fenwick Williams Pasha and other British officers. In one assault alone 7000 Russians were killed and wounded, and it was not until the 26th of November 1855 that the fortress was forced to surrender. The naval operations in the Baltic furnish many interesting examples for the study of naval war. The allied fleet in 1854, after a first repulse, succeeded in landing a French force under Baraguay d'Hilliers before Bomarsund, and the place fell after an eight days' siege. In 1855 seventy allied warships appeared before Kronstadt, which defied them. Reinforced they attacked Sveaborg, but after two days' fighting had to draw off baffled.

The numbers engaged in the Crimean War and the cost in men and money is stated in round numbers below. In May 1855 the Crimean theatre of war occupied 174,500 allies (of whom 32,000 were British) and 170,000 Russians. The losses in battle were: allies 70,000 men, Russians 128,700; and the total losses, from all causes and in all theatres of the war: allies 252,600 (including 45,000 English), Russians 256,000 men (Berndt, _Die Zahl im Kriege_, p. 35). In the siege of Sevastopol the Russians are stated by Berndt to have lost 102,670 men dead, wounded and missing. Mulhall (_Dict. of Statistics_, 1903 ed., pp. 586-587) gives much greater losses to each of the four powers principally engaged. The cost of the war in money is stated by Mulhall to have been L69,000,000 to Great Britain, L93,000,000 to France, L142,000,000 to Russia.

AUTHORITIES.--Of the many works on the Crimean War those of the
greatest value are the following. English: the official work on the
_Siege of Sebastopol_; A. W. Kinglake, _The Invasion of the Crimea_
(London, 1863; "Student's edition" by Sir G. S. Clarke); Sir E. B.
Hamley, _The War in the Crimea_ (London, 1891); (Sir) W. H. Russell,
_The War in the Crimea_ (London, 1855-1856); Sir Evelyn Wood, _The
Crimea in 1854 and in 1894_ (London, 1895); Sir D. Lysons, _The
Crimean War from First to Last_ (London, 1895); Col. A. Lake, _The
Defence of Kars_ (London, 1857). French: Official, _Guerre de
l'Orient, Hist. de l'artillerie_ (Paris, 1859); (Marshal Niel), _Siege
de Sebastopol_ (official account of engineer operations, Paris, 1858),
and _Atlas historique et topographique de la guerre de Crimee_ (see
also the map of Russia by the French staff, sheets 56 and 57); Baron
C. de Bazancourt, _L'Expedition de Crimee_ (Paris, 1856); C. Rousset,
_Histoire de la guerre de Crimee_ (Paris, 1877). Russian: the work of
Todleben, _Die Vertheidigung von Sevastopol_ (St. Petersburg, 1864);
_Defense de Sebastopol_ (St Petersburg, 1863); Anitschkoff, _Feldzug
in der Krim_ (German trans., Berlin, 1857); Bogdanovitch, _Der
Orientkrieg_ (St Petersburg, 1876); Petroff, _Der Donaufeldzug
Russlands gegen Turkei_ (German trans., Berlin, 1891). Of German works
the most useful are: Kunz, _Die Schlachten und Treffen des
Krimkrieges_ (Berlin, 1889); _Der Feldzug in der Krim; Sammlung der
Berichte beider Parteien_ (Leipzig, 1855-1856). (C. F. A.)

CRIMINAL LAW. By criminal, or penal, law is now understood the law as to the definition, trial and punishment of crimes, i.e. of acts or omissions forbidden by law which affect injuriously public rights, or constitute a breach of duties due to the whole community. The sovereign is taken to be the person injured by the crime, as he represents the whole community, and prosecutions are in his name. Criminal law includes the rules as to the prevention, the investigation, prosecution and punishment of crime (q.v.). It lays down what constitutes a criminal offence, what proof is necessary to establish the fact of a criminal offence and the culpability of the offender, what excuse or justification for the act or omission can be legally admitted, what procedure should be followed in a criminal court, what degrees and kinds of punishment should be imposed for the various offences which come up for trial. Finally, it regulates the constitution of the tribunals established for the trial of offences according to the gravity of the infraction of law, and deals with the organization of the police and the proper management of prisons, and the maintenance of prison discipline. (See EVIDENCE; PRISON; POLICE.)

Many acts or omissions, which are technically criminal and classified as offences and punished by fine or imprisonment, cannot be said to have a strictly criminal character, since they do not fall within the popular conception of crime. To this class belong such matters as stopping up a highway under claim of right, or failing to repair it, or allowing a chimney to emit black smoke in excessive quantities, or to catch fire from being unswept, or breach of building by-laws, or driving a motor car on a highway at a speed in excess of the legal limit. Such breaches of law are under the French law described as _contraventions_. In England most of them are described as petty misdemeanours or offences punishable on summary conviction, or less happily as "summary offences," and some writers speak of them as _mala prohibita_ as distinguished from _mala in se_, i.e. as not involving any breach of ordinary morality other than a breach of positive regulations. Continental jurists at times speak of crimes _de droit commun_ (i.e. offences common to all systems of law as distinguished from offences which are crimes only by a particular municipal law). To this class of crimes _de droit commun_ belong most of the offences included in extradition treaties.

Criminal and civil law overlap, and many acts or omissions are not only "wrongs" for which the person injured is entitled to recover compensation for his own personal injury or damage, but also "offences" for which the offender may be prosecuted and punished in the interest of the state. In non-English European systems care is taken to prevent civil remedies from being extinguished by punishment: it is quite usual for the civil and criminal remedies to be pursued concurrently, the individual appearing as _partie civile_ and receiving an award of compensation by the judgment which determines the punishment to be inflicted for the offence against the state. Under English law it is now exceptional to allow civil and criminal remedies to be pursued concurrently or in the same proceeding, or to award compensation to the injured party in criminal proceedings, and he is usually left to seek his remedy by action. Among the exceptions are the restitution of stolen goods on conviction of the thief if the prosecution has been at the instance or with the aid of the owner of the goods (Larceny Act 1861, S 100), and the award of compensation to persons who have suffered injury to property by felony (Forfeiture Act 1870).

Development of modern criminal law.

As Sir Henry Maine says (_Ancient Law_, ed. 1906, p. 381), "All civilized systems of law agree in drawing a distinction between offences against the state or community (crimes or _crimina_) and offences against the individual (wrongs, _torts_ or _delicta_)." But the process of historical development by which this distinction has been ultimately established has given great occasion for study of early laws and institutions by eminent men, whose researches have disclosed the extremely gradual evolution of the modern notion of criminal law enforced by the state from the primitive conceptions and customs of barbarous or semi-civilized communities. Of the oldest codes or digests of customs which are available to the student it has been said the more archaic a code the fuller and minuter is its penal legislation: but this penal legislation is not true criminal law; it is the law, not of crimes, but of wrongs. The intervention of the community or tribe is in the first instance to persuade or compel the wronged person or his family or tribe to abandon private vengeance or a blood feud and to accept compensation for the wrong collectively or individually sustained; and in the tariffs of compensation preserved in early laws the importance of the injured person was the measure of the compensation or vengeance which he was recognized to be entitled to exact, and the scales of punishment or compensation are fixed from this point of view.

Babylon.

The laws of Khammurabi (2285-2242), the oldest extant code, contain definite schemes and scales of offences and punishments, and indicate the existence of tribunals to try the offences and to award the appropriate remedy. The punishments are very severe. It is not distinctly indicated whether the proceedings were at the instance of the state or the person wronged, but compensation and penalty could be awarded in the same proceeding, and the provisions as to the _lex talionis_ and scale of compensation for injuries tend to show that the procedure was on private complaint and not on behalf of the state (see further BABYLONIAN LAW).

Greece.

Of the early criminal laws of Greece only fragments survive, e.g. those of Solon and Draco. In Athens in early times crime was dealt with in the Areopagus from the point of view of religion and by the archons from the point of view of compensation: and it was only when the state interests were directly affected that proceedings by way of [Greek: eisangelia] or impeachment were taken. In classical times crimes fell to be tried by panels of jurors or judges drawn from the assembly and described as [Greek: dikasteria].

Rome.

The earliest materials for ascertaining the criminal law of Rome are to be found in the Twelve Tables, Table VIII. The criminal law of imperial Rome is collected in books 47 and 48 of the Digest. The classification of crimes therein is capricious and anomalous. "In the early Roman law the idea of legislative power was so fully grasped and that of judicial power so little understood that the criminal jurisdiction arose in the form of a legislative enactment applicable to particular cases." Crimes were classified according to the mode of prosecution into:

1. _Publica judicia_, dealing with crimes specifically forbidden by definite laws, which took the place of the standing commissions (_quaestiones perpetuae_) of the time of the republic. In the earlier stages of Roman law the state only interfered to punish offences which gravely affected it, and did so by _privilegia_, which correspond to impeachment or Bill of Pains and Penalties.

2. _Extraordinaria crimina_, crimes for which no special procedure or punishment was provided: the punishment being, within limits, left to the discretion of the judge and the prosecution to the injured party.

3. _Privata delicta_, offences for which a special form of action was open to the injured party, e.g. _actio furti_.

The multiplicity of tribunals under the republic was replaced under the empire by a complete organization of the judiciary throughout the districts (dioceses) under the supervision of the emperor in his privy council (see Maine, _Ancient Law_, ed. 1906, p. 393). Public prosecution under the empire began by arrest of the accused, who was taken before an _eirenarcha_, who examined him (by torture in the case of a slave or parricide) and sent him on for trial before the _praeses_ of the diocese ([Greek: dioikesis]). Private prosecution followed, a procedure closely resembling that of civil actions, beginning with _citatio_ (summons), followed by _libellus_ or accusation, and appointment of a day for hearing. The right of either party to call witnesses was very imperfectly established.

Celtic law.

The early laws of the Celtic races are preserved as to Wales in the laws of Hywel Dda, and as to Ireland in the Book of Aicill and other Brehon law tracts, which are professional collections of precedents and formulae made by the hereditary law caste (Brehons), whose business it was "to pass sentence from precedents and commentaries." (See BREHON LAWS.) The development of Celtic law was arrested by the Saxon and Anglo-Norman conquest: but the materials preserved indicate an origin common with that of Germanic law.

The special characteristics of Irish criminal law, if it can be so called, were:--

1. The law was customary and theoretically unchangeable, and no legislative or judicial authority existed to alter or enforce it.

2. All crimes were treated as wrongs, for which compensation was made by assessment of damages by a consensual tribunal whose power to make awards depended on submission of the parties and the ultimate sanction of public opinion or custom. A customary tariff for compensation existed for all offences from wilful murder downwards. No crime was unamendable. The Irish law recognized a body price or compensation (S. _bot_) and an honour price or _eric_ (S. _wer_), for which the family or tribe of the offender was collectively liable; but there is no clearly ascertained equivalent to the Saxon _wite_, or fine to the chief.

Germanic law.

The laws of the Germanic tribes, so far as preserved in the _Germania_ of Tacitus, and in the compilations of customs known as the Salic and Ripuarian laws, the Leges Barbarorum, the Dooms of AEthelberht and the collections of Anglo-Saxon law and custom (to be found in Thorpe's _Ancient Laws and Institutes of England_), do not indicate any adequate or definite division between crimes and causes of civil action, but, like the laws of Babylon, recognize the system and contain the tariffs of compensation for wrongs. The idea of the compensation was originally to put an end (_finis_) to blood feuds and private war or vengeance.

These laws formed the foundation of the criminal law of Germany, including the Netherlands, of England and of Scandinavia. But in each country the development of criminal law has been affected by influences other than Germanic, mainly consisting in an infusion more or less great of ideas derived from Roman law. In England under Alfred some part of the Levitical law (Exod. xxi. 12-15) was incorporated, just as in 1567 the criminal law as to incest in Scotland was taken bodily from Leviticus xviii.

Anglo-Saxon law.

The stage which the development of criminal law had reached in England by the reign of Edward the Confessor is thus described by Pollock and Maitland (_Hist. Eng. Law_, ii. 447): "On the eve of the Norman Conquest what we may call the criminal law of England (but it was also the law of torts or civil wrongs) contained four elements which deserve attention: Its past history had in the main consisted of the varying relations between them. We have to speak of outlawry, of the blood feud (_faidus_), of the tariffs of _wer_ and _wite_ (_fredus_ or _friede_), and _bot_, of punishment in life and limb. As regards the malefactor the community may assume one of four attitudes: it may make war on him; it may have him exposed to the vengeance of those whom he has wronged; it may suffer him to make atonement; it may inflict on him a determinate punishment, death, mutilation or the like." The _wite_ or sum paid to the king or lord is now thought to have been originally not a penalty but a fee for time and trouble taken in hearing and determining a controversy. But at an early stage fines for breach of peace were imposed. An evil result from the public point of view followed from the system of atoning for crime by pecuniary mulct. "Criminal jurisdiction became a source of revenue." So early as Canute's time certain crimes were pleas of the crown; but grants of criminal jurisdiction, with the attendant forfeitures, were freely made to prelates, towns and lords of manors, and some traces of this jurisdiction still survive (e.g. the criminal jurisdiction of the justices of the _soke_ (_soc_) of Peterborough, and the rights of some boroughs, e.g. Nottingham, to forfeitures). Outlawry soon ceased to be a mode of punishment, and became, as it still is, a process to compel submission to justice (Crown Office Rules, 1906, rules 88-110). Certain crimes, such as murder, rape, arson and burglary, became unamendable or bootless, i.e. placed the offender's life, limb, lands and goods at the king's mercy. These crimes came to be generally described by the name felony (q.v.). Other crimes became punishable by fines which took the place of _wites_. These were styled trespasses and correspond to what is now called misdemeanour (q.v.).

Anglo-Norman period.

Minor acts of violence, dishonesty or nuisance, were dealt with in seigniorial and borough courts by presentment of the jurors of courts baron and courts leet, and punished by fine or in some cases by pillory, tumbril or stocks. Grave acts were dealt with by the sheriff as breaches of the peace. He sat with the freeholders in the county court, which sat twice a year, or in the hundred court, which sat every four weeks. So far as this involved dealing with pleas of the crown the sheriff's jurisdiction was abolished and was ultimately replaced by that of the justices or conservators of the peace. The sheriff then ceased to be a judge in criminal cases, but remained and still is in law responsible for the peace of his county, and is the officer for the execution of the law. The royal control over crime was effectually established by the itinerant justices sent regularly throughout the realm, who not only dealt with the ordinary proprietary and fiscal rights of the crown but also with the graver crimes (treason and felony), and ultimately were commissioned to deal with the less grave offences now classed as indictable misdemeanours. The change resulted from the strengthening of royal authority throughout England, which enabled the crown gradually to enlarge the pleas of the crown and to weaken and finally to supersede the criminal jurisdiction, notably of the sheriff, but also of prelates and lords in ecclesiastical and other manors and franchises. "In the early English laws and constitution there existed a national sovereignty and original criminal jurisdiction, but the ideas of legislative power and crime were very slowly developed." During the 12th century the criminal law was affected by the influence of the church, which introduced into it elements from the Canon and Mosaic laws, and also by the memory of the Roman empire and the renewed study of the Roman law, which enabled lawyers to draw a clearer distinction than had before been recognized between the criminal (_dolus_) and civil (_culpa_) aspect of wrongful acts. The Statute of Treasons (1351) is to a large extent an admixture of Roman with feudal law; and to the same source is probably due the more careful analysis of the mental elements necessary to create criminal responsibility, summed up in the somewhat misleading expression _nemo reus est nisi mens sit rea_.

In the 14th century justices of the peace and quarter sessions were established to deal with offences not sufficiently important for the king's judges, and from that time the course of criminal justice in England has run substantially on the same lines, with the single and temporary interruption caused by the court of star chamber.

Classification of crimes.

The penal laws of modern states classify crimes somewhat differently, but in the main on the same general principles, dividing them into:--

1. Offences against the external and internal order and security of the state.

2. Offences against the administration of police and against public authority.

3. Acts injurious to the public in general.

4. Offences against the person (life, health, liberty and reputation), and conjugal and parental rights and duties.

5. Offences relating to property and contracts (including theft, fraud, forgery and malicious damage).

The terminology by which crimes are described by reference to their comparative gravity varies considerably. In many continental codes distinctions are drawn between crimes (Ger. _Verbrechen_; Norse _vorbrydelser_; Span. _crimenes_; Ital. _reato_), delicts (Ger. _Vergehen_; Ital. _delitti_; Span, _delitos_), and contraventions (Ital. _contravenzioni_; Span, _faltas_).

The classification adopted by English law is peculiar to itself, "treason," "felony" and "misdemeanour," with a tentative fourth class described as "summary offences." The particular distinctions between these three classes are dealt with under the titles TREASON; FELONY; MISDEMEANOUR, &c. Here it is enough to say that the distinction is a result of history and is marked for abolition and reclassification. Treason and most felonies and some misdemeanours would under foreign codes fall under the head of crime. Misdemeanour, roughly but not exactly, corresponds to the French _delit_, and summary offence to _contravention_.

Elements of criminal responsibility.

In all systems of criminal law it is found necessary to determine the criterion of criminal responsibility, the mental elements of crime, the degrees of criminality and the point at which the line is to be drawn between intention and commission.

The full definition of every crime contains expressly or by implication a proposition as to a state of mind, and in all systems of criminal law, competent age, sanity and some degree of freedom from coercion, are assumed to be essential to criminality; and it is also generally recognized that an act does not fall within the sanction of the criminal law if done by pure accident or in an honest and reasonable belief in circumstances which if true would make it innocent; e.g. when a married person marries again in the honest and reasonable but mistaken belief that the former spouse is dead. Honest and reasonable mistake of fact stands on the same footing as absence of the reasoning faculty, as in infants, or perversion of that faculty, as in lunatics.

Besides the elements essential to constitute crime generally, particular mental elements, which may differ widely, are involved in the definition of particular crimes; and in the case of statutory offences adequately and carefully defined, the mental elements necessary to constitute the crime may be limited by the definition so as to make the prohibition of the law against a particular act absolute for all persons who are not infants or lunatics. As a general rule of English law, it is enough to prove that the acts alleged to constitute a crime were done by the accused, and to leave him to rebut the presumption that he intended the natural consequences of the acts by showing facts justifying or excusing him or otherwise making him not liable. Children are conclusively presumed to be incapable of crime up to seven years of age; and from seven to fourteen the presumption is against the capacity, but is not absolute.

Under the common law, insanity was an absolute answer to an accusation of crime. Since 1883, where insanity is proved to have existed at the date of the commission of the incriminated acts, the accused is found guilty of the acts but insane when he did them, and is relegated to a criminal lunatic asylum. There was also at common law a presumption that a married woman committing certain crimes in the presence of her husband did so under his coercion. But under modern decisions and practice the presumption has become feeble almost to inanition (_R_. v. _Mary Baines_, 1900, 69 L.J. Q.B. 681). Distinctions are also drawn between degrees of guilt or complicity.

English criminal law punishes attempts to commit crime if the attempt passes from the stage of resolution or intention to the stage of action, when the completion of the full offence is frustrated by something other than the will of the accused. Except in the case of attempt to commit murder, which is a felony, attempts to commit a crime are punished as misdemeanours. It also punishes the solicitation or incitement of others to commit crime, as a separate offence if the incitement fails, as the offence of being accessory before the fact or abettor if the offence is committed as a result of the incitement; and it punishes persons who, after a more serious crime--felony--has been committed, do any act to shield the offender from justice. In the case of the crimes described as felonies the law distinguishes between principals in the first or second degree and accessories before or after the fact. In the case of misdemeanours the same punishment is incurred by the principal offenders, and by persons who are present aiding and abetting the commission of the offence, or who, though not present, counselled or procured the commission of the offence (see ACCESSORY). Besides these degrees of crime there is one almost peculiar to English law known as conspiracy, i.e. an agreement to commit crime or to do illegal acts (including interference with the due course of justice), which is punishable even if the conspiracy does not get beyond the stage of agreement. The exact nature of this form of crime and the propriety of abolishing it or limiting its scope have been the subject of much controversy, especially with reference to combinations by trade unions.

The English law does not, but most European laws do, allow the jury to reduce the penalty of an offence by finding in their verdict that the commission of the offence was attended by extenuating circumstances; but when the jury recommend to mercy a person whom they find guilty the judge may give effect to the recommendation or report it to the Home Office.

In systems of criminal law derived from England the forms of crime or degrees of complicity above stated reappear with or without modification, but as to conspiracy with a good deal of alteration. In the Indian penal code, for instance, conspiracy is limited to cases of treason (S 121 A), and when it goes beyond agreement in the case of other offences it is merely a form of abetment or participation (S 107).

Definitions of particular crimes.

The criminal law of England[1] is not codified, but is composed of a large number of enactments resting on a basis of common law. A very large part is reduced to writing in statutes. The unwritten portion of the law includes (1) principles relating to the excuse or justification of acts or omissions which are prima facie criminal, (2) the definitions of many offences, e.g. murder, assault, theft, forgery, perjury, libel, riot, (3) parts of the law relating to procedure. The law is very rich in principles and rules embodied in judicial decisions and is extremely detailed and explicit, leaving to the judges very little latitude of interpretation or expression. So far as the legislature is concerned there is an absence of systematic arrangement. The definitions of particular crimes are still to be sought in the common law and the decisions of the judges. The Consolidation Acts of 1861 for the most part leave definitions as they stood, e.g. the Larceny Act 1861 does not define the crime of larceny. The consequence is that exact definitions are very difficult to frame, and the technical view of a crime sometimes includes more, sometimes less, than it ought. Thus the crime of murder, as settled by the existing law, would include offences of such very different moral gravity as killing a man deliberately for the sake of robbing him, and killing a man accidentally in an attempt to rob him. On the other hand, offences which ought to have been criminal were constantly declared by the judges not to fall within the definition of the particular crimes alleged, and the legislature has constantly had to fill up the _lacunae_ in the law as interpreted by the judges.

Jurisdiction.

The jurisdiction to deal with crime is primarily territorial, and can be exercised only as to acts done within the territory or territorial waters, or on the ships of the law-giver. _Extra territorium jus dicenti impune non paretur._ No state will enforce the penal laws of another nor permit the officer of another state to execute its laws outside its own territory. But international law recognizes the competence of a state to make its criminal law binding on its own subjects wherever they are, and perhaps even to punish foreigners who outside its territory do acts which menace its internal or external security, e.g. by dynamite plots or falsification of coin. Apart from extradition arrangements the national law cannot reach such persons, be they citizens or aliens, until they come within the territory of the state whose law has been broken.

The codes of France, Germany and Italy make the penal law national or personal and not territorial. In some British colonies whose legislatures have a derived and limited legislative authority, indirect methods have been taken to deal within the colony with persons who commit offences outside its territory.