gence at the school of Avignon, and eagerly pursued bodily and chivalric exercises. Under Francis de Lorraine, duke of Guise, he completed his education as a warrior and cavalier in his 16th year. Under the command of the duke he was the first on the walls of Calais, which had been for 2 centuries in the hands of the English, and was now taken after a siege of 8 days (1558). He equally distinguished himself at the capture of Guines. Adored for his extraordinary bravery by the army, he was presented by his commander, the duke of Guise, to Henry II., as the chief instrument of his victories, and richly rewarded by numerous clerical estates, it being at that period customary in France to bestow benefices on laymen, to be managed for their benefit by members of the clergy. In the ensuing civil wars of France he served against the Huguenots, defeating the conspiracy of Amboise, formed against the Guises (1560), and fighting in the battles of Rouen, Dreux, St. Denis, Jarnac, Moncontour, and St. Jean d'Angély. As a knight of Malta he fought under Don John of Austria at Lepanto, against the Turks (1571), was wounded, and sent with the news of the victory to Charles IX. of France, and Pope Pius V. Already called "the brave" by the court of France, and "the man without fear" by the army, he became the object of general admiration. He now had his first duel with Bussy d'Amboise, who, meeting him in the street, asked him haughtily: "What is the hour?" and was answered: "The hour of your death!" He afterward saved the life of Bussy, and won his friendship. He took no part in the massacre of St. Bartholomew's (1572), which he freely condemned, though he continued to serve against the Huguenots. The duke of Anjou, brother of the king, having been elected king of Poland (1573) after the extinction of the house of Jagiello, he followed him to that country through Germany, where he defended his dignity against the insults of the irritated Protestants, and on his flight thence, when he succeeded as Henry III. to the throne of France. On his return he was distinguished with new honors by the cities of Venice and Lyons. When, after the battle of Coutras (1587), Henry III. openly commenced hostilities against the league, and the states assembled at Blois decreed the assassination of the duke of Guise, who had followed his father in the leadership of the Catholics, the monarch offered Crillon the honor of killing the duke, which he refused. He afterward fought for the king against the league, and, after the assassination of Henry III., served with equal fidelity the new king, Henry IV. The battle of Ivry (1590) ended his services in the civil wars. Henry IV., who called him "the brave of the brave," said: "I have never feared any but Crillon ;" and wrote to him after the battle of Arques: "Hang yourself, Crillon; we have conquered without you." In the war against Spain, Crillon was active again. The peace of Savoy ended his military career, when he retired to Avignon. VOL. VI.-5

The chivalric bravery of Crillon was equalled by his generosity, which prompted him even to pardon an attempt at his own assassination. The estates of the family were inherited by THOMAS, the 3d of the brothers, and made in the 4th generation a duchy by Benedict XIII. II. The 2d duke of Crillon was Louis, born in 1718, died in 1796 at Madrid. Having entered the French army at the age of 13, he fought under Villars in the campaign of 1733 in Italy, and distinguished himself in Germany. Entering the Spanish service in 1762, he conquered Minorca (1782), and was rewarded by the title of duke of Mahon, and became captain-general of the provinces of Valencia and Murcia. His Mémoires (Paris, 1791) contain many particulars valued by men of military science. III. LOUIS ANTOINE FRANÇOIS de Paule de CRILLON, duke of Mahon and grandee of Spain, son of the preceding, born in 1775, died in 1832. Made a colonel in the Spanish army at the age of 15, he was captured with his regiment on the invasion of France in 1794. After the peace he served, with the permission of his government, as volunteer under Moreau; then again in Spain, where he became commander of a division, governor of Tortosa, and in 1807 captain-general of Guipuzcoa, Alava, and Biscay, in which capacity he faithfully guarded the northern fortresses against the generals of Napoleon, until he was expressly commanded by the king, who rejected his warnings, to surrender them to the French. After the fall of the Bourbons he swore allegiance to Joseph, brother of Napoleon, and was made lieutenant-general of the Spanish army, and successively captain-general of Navarre, Toledo, and Cuenca. Proscribed by the returning Bourbons in 1814, he fled to France, where he remained, and received the title of lieutenant-general. Of the 2 sons of his brother, FÉLIX DOROTHÉR, who was peer of France, and died in 1820, one served under the restoration, in the army, and as peer of France, the other under Napoleon and the restoration.

CRIMEA, a peninsula forming the southern extremity of the Russian empire in Europe. It extends between lat. 44° and 46° N. and long. 32° and 37° E.; greatest extent from E. to W. 190 m., from N. to S. 123 m.; area about 8,000 sq. m. This peninsula is connected with the main body of the empire by the narrow isthmus of Perekop, the breadth of which is less than 5 m. Though only the 260th part of European Russia, the Crimea, in consequence of its geographical, commercial, and strategetical position, is one of the most important divisions of the empire, commanding as it does the navigation of the Black sea. It has a coast line of 550 m. Along its N. E. shore there extends a long and narrow inlet of the sea of Azof, from which it is separated by a tongue of land, or rather a sand bar, about 70 m. in length and 1 to 1 m. in breadth. This inlet is so shallow that in some places it has the appearance of a morass, and its very name (Sivash, or Putrid sea) indicates its general aspect. The eastern part of the

Crimea forms a minor peninsula, stretching eastward to the strait of Yenikale, the Cimmerian Bosporus of the ancients. While the N. portion of the peninsula is only a continuation of the steppes of S. Russia, barren, cheerless, and swept by chilling winds, the S. portion, sloping from a mountain chain which stretches from Sebastopol to Kaffa as a barrier, enjoys a semitropical climate and a great richness and variety of vegetation. Hence the N. portion has from time immemorial been occupied by nomadic tribes, eking out a scanty subsistence by cattleraising; while on the S. slope higher forms of culture have been developed by the Greeks, the Genoese, the Tartars, and the Russians, successively. There is only a comparatively narrow belt of arable soil on the northern slope, and on this belt the most important towns are situated, such as Sebastopol, Bakhtchissarai (the old capital of the Tartar rulers), Simferopol, Staroi Krym, and Karasoo-Bazar. To the northward of this belt extends the steppe, its monotony relieved only by numerous herds of cattle and thousands of cranes, storks, and gulls, swarming around the saltwater lagoons and marshes. The mountain chain (Jaila), mentioned before, appears to be a western continuation of the Caucasus, from which it is separated only by the strait of Yenikale. In the Tchatir-dagh, or Tent mountain (the Trapezus or Table mountain of the ancients), it attains to an elevation of 5,051 feet above the level of the sea, and terminates to the southward of Sebastopol in the promontory called Crion Metopon (Ram's Face) by the Greeks, and Ai Burun (Holy Cape) by the Tartars. The S. coast, to which the principal chain sends several small branches, is exceedingly picturesque in appearance. Wherever the slope of the hillsides is not too steep, they are covered with vineyards and the country houses of the rich; the valleys, watered by numerous small streams, are carefully cultivated and produce rich crops of grain and fruit; the mountains abound in valuable timber. The N. steppe, on the other hand, is almost entirely destitute of fresh-water springs and rivers, and its soil is generally impregnated with salt.-The 2 principal rivers of the Crimea are the Salghir, which rises from a cavern near Simferopol, at the northern foot of the Tchatir-dagh, and empties into the Putrid sea, and its tributary, the Karasoo (Black Water), which rises from the same mountain a little further E. Of the smaller streams, the Alma, running a little N. of Sebastopol from E. to W., has become widely known by the battle fought on its banks, Sept. 20, 1854. The climate of the Crimea is salubrious and delightful in the springtime, but irregular and generally very hot in summer, a temperature of 100° F. being quite common. The autumn is considered unhealthy, fever and ague prevailing at that time of the year in the lowlands. In winter the weather is often extremely severe, more so than in most other parts of Europe in the same latitude. The apples raised in the southern Crimea are excellent, and command high prices in the mar

ket of Moscow. All the various kinds of grain, including maize, also peas, hemp, and tobacco, are grown in the fields; olives, melons, watermelons, gourds, cucumbers, in gardens; quinces, plums, peaches, apricots, cherries, mulberries, walnuts, hazlenuts, chestnuts, are among the vegetable products of the Crimea. Of wild animals, only deer, wolves, badgers, foxes, hares, weasels, and jerboas are found; camels are employed on the northern steppes, where also buffaloes and oxen, sheep and goats, are raised. The horses of the Crimea are more remarkable for activity and intelligence than beauty. The birds most common are crows, owls, thrushes, blackbirds, partridges, quails, kingfishers, pigeons, and poultry, geese, swans, ducks, teals, gulls. Among the insects, the hideous rana variabilis, scorpions, tarantula spiders, and scolopendras may be mentioned. Bees are abundant; so are fish on the coast, but not in the rivers. The production of grain increased from 350,000 quarters in 1841 to 850,000 in 1851. Agriculture is most developed in the district of Berdiansk, peopled by foreign settlers. The Crimea possessed in 1851 about 2,000,000 sheep, half of which were fine-wooled, 85,700 horses, and 248,260 horned cattle. The salt manufacture is monopolized by government; the most celebrated salt mines are those of Perekop and Eupatoria. The number of vines increased from 5,929,500 in 1832 to 35,577,000 in 1848; and the entire vintage of the Crimea amounted in 1851 to about 3,500,000 gallons. The Crimean wines which are exported are generally of a secondary quality, and are chiefly used for mixing with other wines. The vineyards of Prince Woronzoff are highly esteemed, and yield a sparkling wine, something like champagne. The principal articles of export are salt, wine, honey, wax, leather, hides, wool, lamb skins, and morocco leather; and an active transit trade exists, corn, seeds, tallow, tobacco, and silk being brought here for barter with European, and especially Russian manufacturers.-The population of the peninsula is a mixture of the Greek, Italian, Tartar, and Slavonian nationalities. There are, beside, Armenians, Caraite Jews, Greeks, gypsies, and also 9 German colonies established in 1804-5, and reënforced in 1816-'17 by 1,400 Swabian families, but numbering at present only about 1,800. The Tartars (Mohammedans), in former times so numerous that they were able to muster 100,000 warriors, still constitute the principal part of the population, the entire number of which is given at 200,000.-The Crimea, with a part of the province of Taurida, was acquired by Russia toward the end of the 18th century. Its aboriginal inhabitants, the Cimmerians, having been driven out by other Scythians, left only a small remnant (the Tauri) in the mountain recesses, and from them the ancient name of the country, Tauris or Chersonesus Taurica, was derived. It was celebrated by the legends of Iphigenia and Orestes; was the chief possession of the Greek kingdom of the Bosporus; was held under Roman protection,

and subsequently conquered by the barbarian tribes which invaded the eastern provinces of the Roman empire. Early in the middle ages it belonged to the Byzantine empire. Toward the end of the 12th century the Genoese and Venetians obtained a foothold. Kaffa and Cherson were established by the former, Tana by the latter. The Tartars overran the peninsula in the 13th century, and maintained their rule for more than 200 years, when they became subject to the Ottomans. Still all their municipal institutions were left undisturbed by the conquerors, who even allowed the Tartars to retain their own khans (princes), though as vassals of the sultan. In the latter portion of the 17th century the Russians began to covet the Crimea, and in 1771 they succeeded so far as to wrest it from Turkey and clothe it with a nominal national independence. In 1783 the khan Shahin Gherai, having been expelled from the Crimea by the anti-Russian party, ceded his country to Russia, and in 1784 the peninsula and its adjoining provinces were annexed to the empire. The peninsula is divided into 4 districts: Simferopol, Feodosia, Yalta, and Eupatoria. The capital, Simferopol, has only 8,600 inhabitants, and has lost all vestiges of its former splendor as the residence of the Tartar khans. It had been outgrown by Sebastopol before the destruction of that place in 1855, and by Eupatoria (Kozlov), Bakhtchissarai, Feodosia, and Kertch. The latter, the old Panticapaum, is almost the only town in Russia that is built entirely of stone; its population amounts to about 10,000 souls. Karasoobazar, situate to the N. E. of Simferopol and containing about 15,000 inhabitants, is the principal seat of what little industry the Crimea can boast of-The Crimea was, in 1854 and 1855, the principal theatre of the war between the allied western powers and Russia. The armies of the allies effected a landing at the bay of Eupatoria, Sept. 14, 1854. On their southward march toward Sebastopol they encountered the Russian forces, commanded by Prince Mentchikoff, on the banks of the Alma. A bloody battle was fought (Sept. 20), in which the Russians were compelled to retreat. On Sept. 25 the British forces seized Balaklava, and on Oct. 9 the regular siege of the southern portion of Sebastopol commenced, the Russians having sunk vessels in the entrance to the harbor and thus rendered the city unassailable by maritime force. On Oct. 25 and Nov. 5, the Russians vainly attempted to annihilate the besieging forces in the battles of Balaklava and Inkermann, but afterward confined themselves mainly to the defensive, their frequent sorties being intended more to barass and retard the siege than to relieve the place definitively. Among these conflicts some assumed almost the character of regular field battles; for instance, an unsuccessful attack of the French upon a new redoubt (Feb. 23, 1855), their first assault upon the Malakoff and Redan (June 18), and the battle of the Tchernaya (Aug. 16), in which the Russians, numbering 50,000 infantry and 6,000 cavalry, made a last effort to

break the aggressive force of the enemy. The trenches having been driven so near the Russian defensive works that another assault could be ventured, the final bombardment was opened Sept. 5, and lasted for 3 days. On Sept. 8 the Malakoff and Redan were stormed and taken by the allies after a desperate struggle. The Russians, after having blown up their extensive fortifications on the southern shore of the harbor, retreated to the north side, which the allies never seriously attempted to conquer. The latter, having destroyed the costly docks, arsenals, and ship yards of Sebastopol, remained inactive in their camp, and, with the exception of the capture and sack of Kertch on the strait of Yenikale, no further feats of arms were accomplished. The forces of the allies were withdrawn in the summer and autumn of 1855. In the latter part of 1858, two brothers of the emperor made a tour of inspection in the Crimea, and it was rumored that it was the intention of the government to establish a city like Sebastopol at or near the strait of Yenikale.-On April 10, 1856, Col. Munro exhibited in the London society of antiquaries a great number of relics discovered beneath a spot between Balaklava and Sebastopol which had been used throughout the war as the provision depot of the English camp. The first intimation of the antiquities was the turning up of a coin of Romanus, and at length an oblong enclosure was cleared out measuring 150 feet by 93, having at one end a circular form and walls 10 feet in thickness, comprising a Cyclopean wall and an inner wall of wrought masonry. These remains are supposed to be those of a temple, dating from 400 to 200 B. C. Beside a beautiful small female head in terra cotta, presumed to be Astarte or some other divinity, which has been presented to the queen of England, 16 vases and fragments of pottery, glass beads, fibulæ, spear heads, and other antiquities, were discovered on the same occasion in the Crimea. On Dec. 5, 1856, Dr. Duncan McPherson, who had officiated as inspector-general of hospitals of the Turkish contingent, gave before the same society a description of the excavations conducted under his care, on the site of Pantecapæum and the Mons Mithridates, in the immediate vicinity of Kertch; and has since published a splendid illustrated work in folio, with drawings of tombs and other relics, including some curiously constructed chambers. Many of these antiquities have since been deposited in the British museum.

CRIMINAL LAW. This branch of jurisprudence is the earliest in development, but the latest to be reduced to a rational and consistent system. The predominance of penal laws may be seen in the early legislation of every nation. The reason is, that in a rude state of society personal violence is the most pressing subject for which laws are required. Laws are accordingly enacted for the emergency, and, as might be expected, having reference to the immediate occasion, they partake rather of blind popu

lar impulse than the calm deliberation of legislative wisdom; not that the laws are in fact dictated by the will of the people, but the legislators themselves are under the influence of the same prejudices that actuate the popular mind. The consequence is, that excessive severity at first prevails, which in the course of time is meliorated by evasion of the laws, and the contrary extreme of undue laxity has in many instances succeeded. The latter effect can be guarded against only by a timely revision of the laws, and an accommodation of them to the more humane views resulting from an advance of civilization. But, as we shall have occasion to show more particularly in the course of this article, the practical wisdom required for such a revision is the very latest growth of civilization, and belongs to the highest branch of political science. It has indeed been erroneously supposed that criminal law is extremely simple as compared with the laws relating to property. This idea has grown out of the fact that legislation respecting crimes has by necessity been called for when as yet the state of society was unsettled. Laws were made for individual cases, and by consequence were destitute of sound legal discrimination; yet by long use, and for want of the capacity required for systematic review and amendment, they have become fixed in all their incongruity. This irregular character of criminal laws is not peculiar to one or a few nations, but is observable in all systems of jurisprudence which have not in a later and more mature age undergone revision. Hence criminal law has more a statutory or positive character than the more gradually developed system of laws affecting property. In the absence of general principles and of all harmonizing method, each statute or provision of law is isolated, distinct, and positive, and therefore precludes all reasoning by analogy and all modification for the sake of conformity to the changing circumstances of society. So far, then, criminal law may be said to be simple, inasmuch as each statute is the law of the particular case referred to, and there can be no expansion or reproduction by analogy. Yet there are principles applicable to this branch of the law, which may, in like manner as the elementary rules of civil law, be developed into a harmonious system. Another peculiarity of criminal law, or rather of its administration at an early period, is the want of discrimination as to the palliative circumstances of crime. Motives are comparatively little considered in early penal laws, or in the judicial proceedings founded upon them. Gibbon's remark, that "the life or death of a citizen is determined with less caution and delay than the most ordinary question of covenant or inheritance," is true only of a jurisprudence which has retained its early crude legislation respecting crimes without subsequent revision. To a considerable extent this was the state of the English criminal law at the time Gibbon wrote, but it has since that time undergone a radical change. There is a third charac

teristic of the early administration of criminal law, viz.: the comparative disregard of the rules of evidence. The fact of being charged with a crime, especially if there be some strong circumstance of suspicion, naturally induces a prejudice against the accused. He is deemed guilty until he proves himself innocent; contrary to the more humane axiom of a later age, that a man is to be deemed innocent until he is proved to be guilty. The very atrocity of the crime of which a man is accused is an aggravation of popular prejudice, and in a semi-civilized community is almost equivalent to condemnation. The patient investigation of a case, the careful weighing of all the evidence, particularly that which is derived from circumstances, and the impartial judgment unswayed by popular excitement or the exacerbated passion of the injured party, belong to a more advanced stage of civilization and jurisprudence. Illustrations of the foregoing remarks will be found in the penal laws of nations the most celebrated for their legislation. The laws of Draco, which on account of their undiscriminating severity were said to have been written in blood, are not to be deemed the mere expression of the cruel heart of the legislator, but rather the reflection of the sanguinary disposition of the Athenian people at that period. So the decemvirs who prepared (perhaps merely compiled) the 12 tables did not declare crimes nor impose penalties abhorrent to the popular disposition, but rather were actuated by the same impulses and prejudices which prevailed in the minds of the people. It was not indeed a democratic influence, for some provisions were made expressly for the support of patrician power over the plebeian commonalty; but, allowing a certain degree of discrimination in the estimation of crimes as affecting one or the other class politically, the code of the decemvirs may be assumed to be a fair expression of the temper of the Roman people. Upon analysis of these celebrated laws, all the defects which we have specified as incident to early legislation become apparent. The penal largely predominates over the civil, and in respect to crimes and their penalties there is an absence of what we should deem a just discrimination respecting the relative measure of crimes and the punishment due to each, and there is a want of due regard to motives or other palliative incidents. lation of the person was punished by the retaliatory infliction of the same injury upon the wrong doer. A false witness was to be thrown headlong from the capitol. The killing of a man, or making use of magical words to hurt him, or the preparing of poison for him, or giving it to him, were subject alike to the penalty of death. A parricide was adjudged to be sewn up in a sack and thrown into the river; the addition to the contents of the sack of a cock, a viper, a dog, and an ape, were the fanciful devices of those who executed the law, and not prescribed by the law itself, though in the Institutes of Justinian they appear as if the whole

Muti

had been originally so enacted. Slander by words or defamatory verses was punished by beating with a club, and the authorities cited by Gibbon seem to prove that the punishment extended to death. This was undoubtedly a political law, intended in the first instance for the protection of the decemvirs themselves against any rude complaint by the people. It remained, however, unrepealed, though, like other enactments, probably unexecuted, except for tyrannical purposes. The treading down of another's corn field at night was punished with death; but the cutting down of trees, whatever might be the value, was subject to a mere fine of 25 pounds of brass. But the most apt illustration of the irrational severity of these laws was the treatment of an insolvent debtor, who, without any other imputation of fraud than the fact of owing the debt and not having paid it, could be taken home by the creditor and kept 60 days, fettered with irons not exceeding 15 pounds in weight; at the end of which time, if the debt remained unpaid, he could be brought before the people on 3 market days, on the last of which his body could be cut into pieces according to the number of creditors, or, if they preferred, he could be sold into foreign slavery. The excessive severity of a law defeats the very object had in view in enacting it. "The criminal code of the decemvirs," says Gibbon, "was abolished by the humanity of accusers, witnesses, and judges; and impunity became the consequence of immoderate rigor." Magistrates were prohibited from inflicting on a free citizen any capital or even corporal punishment. All cases affecting the life or liberty of a Roman citizen were, by the laws of the 12 tables, to be tried by the comitia centuriata. The multiplication of these cases led to the giving power annually to the prætors to sit in judgment on state of fences, with a certain number of judges drawn from the rolls of citizens; and new prætors were appointed with special powers for the trial of offences relating only to individuals. There was a general amelioration of the laws by the operation of these different provisions. As there was no arrest until sentence had been pronounced, the judgment could be evaded by going into voluntary exile, and the interdiction of fire and water (i. e. exile) became the extreme limit of judicial severity even upon conviction in capital cases. A new administration of criminal law was, however, introduced with the imperial government. The senate was made the instrument of imperial power, for the condemnation of criminals charged with offences against the state; and the ordinary magistrates became invested with powers which under the republic had been reserved to the people, either in the comitia or in the popular body of judices, who sat with the prætor. Any Roman citizen might be a public accuser and prosecute criminal actions, but it seems not to have been usual, except when some political object was sought, or where the accuser had some relationship to the injured party, either by blood or profes

sionally, as in the case of patron and client. It was a peculiarity of the Roman criminal law that, however mild it became in respect to free citizens, it was enforced against slaves and foreigners with all the stringency of its ancient severity.-The laws of the Germanic nations equally illustrate the propositions above stated, and especially the absence of all classification of crimes, and the disproportion of penalties to the different degrees of moral turpitude. The Salic law contained 343 penal articles, and only 65 on all other subjects. Of the penal laws, 150 related to cases of robbery, 74 of which referred to the stealing of animals; cases of violence against the person were the subjects of 113 articles, of which 30 related to mutilation of the person, and 24 to violence against women. The want of generalization is noticed by Guizot, as proving defect of intellectual development and the precipitation of the legislator in enacting laws: "Every case of robbery, of violence in the very fact, is taken hold of in order to immediately inflict a penalty; and there was no idea but of adding a new article of law whenever a new crime was committed, however trifling its difference from those which had been already provided for." Yet these laws present the same contrast that we have seen in the Roman, in the mildness of the penalties inflicted upon free men, and the cruelty of the punishments to which the slaves, and even bond laborers (coloni), were subject. Composition (wehrgeld or widrigeld), a pecuniary mulct, was the penalty enforced upon a free man, varying in amount with the atrocity of the offence; but upon slaves and laborers, tortures and death were freely inflicted. Similar provisions were contained in the laws of the Ripuarian Franks, the Burgundians, and the Anglo-Saxons. It was, however, understood that the injured party had a right to refuse composition, and to seek satisfaction by his own hand; which last alternative was regulated by certain rules, and hence received the designation of judicial combat. This was a peculiar feature of the Germanic law, and was not confined to criminal cases, but became a common mode of deciding questions of fact even in civil suits; and the right was reciprocal, that is to say, either party had the right to call the other to a decision of the controversy by combat. So either party had the right to challenge witnesses, and even judges, to combat, upon the allegation that the testimony was untrue or the judgment unjust. Montesquieu maintains that the judicial combat was introduced as a natural consequence of what he calls negative proof, that is, the denial of the charge by the party under oath, which was a purgation in criminal cases, and was also admitted in civil cases with the addition of the oaths of a certain number of others, called conjuratores or compurgatores, who merely deposed that they believed the party. The defect of this kind of proof, as well as of the other mode of determining facts, viz., by ordeal, rendered the trial by combat a necessity;