Femgerichte (Fehmgerichte or Vehmgerichte) were criminal courts of Germany in the middle ages, which took the place of the regular administration of justice (then fallen into decay), especially in criminal cases. These courts originated and had their chief jurisdiction in Westphalia, and their proceedings were conducted with the most profound secrecy. They seem to have been a survival of old territorial jurisdictions which, on the general distraction and lawlessness prevalent after the fall of Henry the Lion in 1182, acquired an extensive and tremendous authority. In process of time, however, they degenerated, and no longer confined themselves to law and precedent, so that the secrecy in which they enveloped themselves only served as a cloak to their criminal purposes.
The flagrant abuse of their power brought about their fall. In 1461 various princes and cities of Germany, as well as the Swiss confederates, united in a league against them, but their influence was not entirely destroyed until an amended form of trial and penal judicature was introduced. The last Femgericht was held at Zeil in 1568.
The president of the secret tribunal was called the Freigraf, and was generally a prince or count. His associates, who concurred in and executed the sentence, were called Freischoffen. These were scattered through all the provinces of Germany, and recognized one another by certain signs and watchwords. They acknowledged the emperor as their superior, and for this reason generally made him one of their number at his coronation at Aix-la-Chapelle. The assemblies of the tribunal were open or secret. The former were held by day in the open air; the latter by night, in a forest or in concealed and subterranean places. In these different cases the circumstances of judgment and the process of trial were different. The crimes of which the secret tribunal usurped cognizance were heresy, sorcery, rape, theft, robbery, and murder.
The accusation was made by one of the Freischoffen, who, without further proof, declared upon oath that the accused had committed the crime. The accused was now thrice summoned to appear before the secret tribunal, and the citation was secretly affixed to the door of his dwelling or some neighbouring place; the accuser remained unknown. If, after the third summons, the accused did not appear, he was once more cited in a solemn session of the court, and if still contumacious, was given over to the Freischoffen. The first Freischoffe who met him was bound to execute the decree of the court. A dagger was left by the corpse to show that it was not a murder, but a punishment inflicted by one of the Freischoifen. How many judicial murders were perpetrated in this manner from revenge, interested motives, or malice, may well be imagined. Research Femgerichte
Martin Vs Hunter's Lessee was an American legal case heard in Virginia, which questioned the jurisdiction of the US Supreme Court. In 1791 Martin brought a suit of ejectment against the defendant in the District Court of Virginia for the recovery of certain lands. This court decided for the defendant. The Court of Appeals of Virginia reversed this decision, and their judgment was in turn reversed by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1816. This judgment the Court of Appeals of Virginia refused to execute, being 'of the unanimous opinion that the appellate power of the Supreme Court of the United States does not extend to this court under a sound construction of the Constitution of the United States', and 'that the Act of Congress to that effect is not in pursuance of the said Constitution'. The Supreme Court overruled this decision and established its prerogative upon such points. Research Martin Vs Hunter's Lessee
The Merryman's Case was a famous case before the US Supreme Court. The petitioner was arrested at his home in Maryland, in 1861, for treason, by order of a major-general of the National army. He was imprisoned at Fort McHenry, Baltimore. Chief Justice Taney, of the Supreme Court of the United States, granted a writ of habeas corpus, which the officer in charge at Fort McHenry refused to execute, on the ground that the President had suspended the writ of habeas corpus. The majority of the court decided that no such power was vested in the President, Congress alone having such privilege; that a military officer has no right to arrest a person not subject to the rules and articles of war, except in the aid of judicial authority. Research Merryman's Case
Slavery in the American colonies began with the importation of a cargo of slaves into Virginia by a Dutch ship in 1619. In the other colonies it was gradually introduced. The slave trade was favoured by the British Government during the eighteenth century. Meantime a sentiment unfavourable to it began to develop in the colonies. The Germantown Quakers drew up a memorial against it in 1688, Boston town meeting in 1701. Woolman and other Quakers preached against it. Slaves were few in the North, but numerous in the South, where their increase and the danger felt from them caused severe laws respecting them.
The American Revolution, as a movement for liberty, with its declaration proclaiming all men free and equal, joined with the humanitarian spirit of the close of the century to increase anti-slavery sentiment. The Northern States either abolished slavery or provided for gradual emancipation. All the States but the southernmost forbade the importation of slaves from abroad. But the sentiment soon declined.
In the Constitution of 1787, States were given representation in the House of Representatives for three-fifths of their slaves, and Congress was forbidden to prohibit the slave trade until 1808. The invention of the cotton-gin made slave labour more profitable than ever before, and the South began to defend slavery as a positive good, in spite of its obvious economic disadvantages.
Abolition societies, first formed about 1793, languished after 1808. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 arranged that the area west of the Mississippi and north of 36 degrees 30 minutes should not be open to slavery, except in the Case of Missouri. The Ordinance of 1787 had forbidden slavery in the region north of the Ohio.
The American Colonization Society tried to palliate the evils of slavery by emancipation and deportation. About 1830 the agitation against slavery took on a more ardentphase, and henceforth for thirty years slavery was the most absorbing of political themes. Slave labour demanded more and more new land, and the Government was led to the annexation of Texas and the war with Mexico largely by this need. After bitter disputes, the territory so acquired was thrown open to slavery if the settlers desired it; this was done by the Compromise of 1850. The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 extended the same permission to territory north of 36 degrees 30 minutes, repealing the Missouri Compromise; and the Supreme Court sustained such repeal.
The question of slavery in the territories proved the crucial question. Many in the North who had no desire for the abolition of slavery in States where it was already existent and legal were unwilling to see it extended, while slave-owners claimed Constitutional right to protection of their property in slaves, as essential if they were to have any share in the common territories. The Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 and the unwillingness of Northern people to execute it assisted to precipitate conflict. Finally, in 1860, the election of Abraham Lincoln was taken by the South as proof that their claims were to be disregarded, and secession and the American Civil War resulted.
In 1790 there were 698,000 slaves in the United States 40,000 in the North, 293,000 in Virginia, 107,000 in South Carolina, 103,000 in Maryland, 101,000 in North Carolina; in 1800, 894,000; in 1810, 1,191,000; in 1820, 1,538,000; in 1830, 2,009,000; in 1840, 2,487,000; in 1850, 3,204,000; in 1860, 3,954,000, the last being about one-fourth of the total population of the Southern States. Research Slavery in America
Unwritten Law was a popular term for as assumed right to execute summary vengeance on behalf of a female relative by killing her violator or seducer. Although occasionally allowed by American courts as recently as the 1930's - and to date in some southern states when the alleged violator was Black and the victim White - , the principle has never been recognised in British law. Research Unwritten Law
Idi Amin Dada was a Ugandan soldier and dictator. He was born in 1925 at Koboko and died in 2003. A sergeant in the British colonial army in Uganda before staging a military coup in 1971 and taking control of the country from the then left-wing leader, Obote. Western governments welcomed Amin's coup as it removed a potential communist from the country. However, Idi Amin's first action was to execute all the military thought to be loyal to Obote.
In order to maintain power - which he did through the public execution of any opposition - Idi Amin required military support. This he at first obtained from Israel, but Israel withdrew after becoming aware of Idi Amin's atrocities. Idi Amin then courted the Arab world, and became an active supporter of the Palestinian terrorists, sending a telegram of support for them following the massacre of Israeli athletes at the Olympics and inviting an Israeli passenger jet, hijacked by Palestinian terrorists to land at Entebbeairport. His brutal rule which resulted in the deaths of thousands of people ended after his failed invasion of neighbouring Tanzania resulted in Tanzania invading Uganda and capturing Kampala, the Ugandan capital in 1979. Idi Amin escaped to exile in the Saudi Arabian city of Mecca where he died. Research Idi Amin
Pietro da Corto'na (properly Pietro Berrettini) was an Italian painter and architect. He was born in 1596 at Cortona and died in 1669. PopeUrban VIII employed him to decorate a chapel in the church of St Bibiena, and also to execute the frescoes of the grand salon of the Barberini Palace. Many churches of Rome were decorated by him and at Florence he adorned the Pitti Palace for the Grand-duke Ferdinand II. His easel pictures, although of less value than his larger works, are held in great estimation. As an architect he did some important work in church restoration. Research Pietro da Cortona
The Battle of Charleroi was fought during the Great War between French and German forces on the 21st to the 24th of August 1914 as the French attempted to make an orderly retreat from Belgium under intense German pressure. The operation probably saved the French 5th Army and slowed the German advance into northern France considerably.
Charleroi was the most important battle of the Great War up to the first Battle of the Marne, and was remarkable for the escape of a French army from an envelopment such as the Germans carried out in 1870 at Sedan. The German staff expected to reap the fruit of the treacherous advance through Belgium at this point, but its plans were thwarted by the quick manoeuvring of the two generals concerned - Lanrezac on the French side, and Sir John French on the British.
Owing to changes in its organization made by Joffre at the last minute, the 5th French army (commanded by Lanrezac) had not completed its concentration before it was attacked. It was composed of the 1st, 10th, 3rd, and 18th corps, in order from right to left, though the last was not ordered from Alsace before August the 16th, and did not arrive until August the 21st. It was stationed on the eve of the battle from Givet on the Meuse to the line of the Sambre, near Namur - which fortress was to protect its centre - and Charleroi, with its extreme left north of the Sambre near Anderlues. It included five independent divisions, badly equipped, and may have totalled some 250,000 men.
At Namur were 25,000 Belgian troops, somewhat shaken in moral, under General Michel, and at Maubeuge a mass of 30,000 reservists and territorials, badly equipped owing to the shortage of boots, and without transport. They could not be regarded as available for field warfare. The mission of the 5th army, in conjunction with the British Expeditionary Force, then arriving at Maubeuge and moving towards Mons, was to protect the French left flank and to strike the German right, which was supposed by the French high command not to extend far west of the Ardennes.
The position of the 5th army was one of great peril. Three German armies were closing upon it - namely, the 1st (Kluck), passing across its front to execute a vast enveloping movement - and if the British should be encountered to deal with them; the 2nd (Bulow), moving directly upon its front on the Sambre; and the 3rd (Hausen), the existence of which does not appear to have been known to the French supreme command, moving against its right flank and rear. Thus the 5th army and the British were threatened with the double envelopment which marked Cannae and Sedan, two of the most famous battles in history before the Great War.
The total German force is placed by Baumgarten-Crusius at 30 infantry and 5 cavalry divisions (each German cavalry division included rifle battalions, machine-gun companies and cyclists, besides cavalry and horseartillery, and thus was far more formidable than a British or French cavalry division), against 16 British and French infantry divisions and 4 cavalry divisions, In fighting force on the spot the Germans were about two to one (600,000 to about 320,000 men).
Lanrezac with good reason was anxious as to his position. He had warned Joffre in vain of the risk of such a great German turning movement as was now being carried out. On August the 20th he was ordered to take the offensive in combination with the 4th army (Langle de Gary) on his right, which was separated from him by a wide gap, and with the 3rd army (Ruffey). He was unable to do so because all his troops had not arrived, and the British were not yet in position. On the 21st he pointed this out to the French headquarters, and was told that he could wait until the 24th before attacking. It was fortunate that he did not advance on the 20th; had he done so he would have walked with his whole army into the trap which the Germans were trying to set for him.
On August the 21st the Germans took the initiative. Troops under Gallwitz began the bombardment of Namur with heavy German and Austrian artillery, and two German corps appeared on the Sambre, and with detachments forced the passage of that river at Tamines and Jemeppe, driving back detachments of the French 10th and 3rd corps. French documents were captured afterwards which showed that Lanrezac's intention was to allow portions of the German army to cross the Sambre, and then fall on them in full strength, a judicious plan which his corps commanders disregarded by making a series of ill-concerted attacks. On the French left, Sordet's cavalry was pushed back, opening a serious gap between the 5th French army and the British.
That same evening Hausen's 3rd army at three points near Dinant attempted to force the passage of the Meuse, gravely threatening the communications of Lanrezac and engaging the attention of the French 1st corps - which nevertheless was able to protect the river line. That night Bulow announced that he would fight the great battle on the 23rd. Perfect cooperation between Bulow and Hausen was necessary to bring off the stroke. Fortunately for the Allies, Bulow developed a violent attack with four corps on the Sambre on the 22nd before Hausen was ready. After severe fighting the Germans pushed across the Sambre and penetrated into Charleroi, where they burnt many of the houses and killed many inhabitants. Heavy loss was inflicted on the Guard by a counter-attack of the 38th Algerian division south of Chatelet, but French authorities stated that their own casualties were 'terrible'. By nightfall the French had been driven back to a line which ran from near Thuin to Mettet, and the Germans were clear of the difficult industrial district. This retirement exposed the flank of the British at Mons, and was one of the reasons why Sir John French had to retreat.
On the evening of August the 22nd Lanrezac issued orders for an attack on Bulow's army; but during that same night Hausen placed 340 guns in position on the east bank of the Meuse, from Yvoir to Blamont, to cover a crossing and take Lanrezac in flank and rear. To meet this attack, on August the 23rd the 1st French corps had to be withdrawn from the front northwards, where it was on the point of administering the coup de grace to the Guards; but it succeeded in stopping the 3rd German army. In the morning German airmen reported that the roads behind Lanrezac's front were crowded with disorderly columns retiring south-west and west. About the same time German troops penetrated into Namur, moving between the forts, and the Belgian field troops and three French battalions there were forced to decamp with all speed, losing heavily in their retreat.
But at the critical moment the French on the Meuse, notwithstanding the enormous artillery ascendancy of Hausen's army, inflicted such heavy loss that by nightfall no strong German force had crossed the river. At 4.30p.rn. German airmen reported the general retreat of the French, though, according to French authorities, Lanrezac did not order this until 9 pm. It was the news of this retreat which led Sir John French to break off the Battle of Mons. By the morning of the 24th the 5th army held a front from Beaumont to Rosee, and the danger of envelopment from Hausen's army had practically vanished. It fell back, despite heavy loss, in fairly good order to another line between Avesnes and Regniowez.
The losses on both the German and French sides were considerable. Bulow claimed that he only lost 11,000 men, and that the French losses were at least double; he said that he took 4,000 prisoners and 36 guns, but he gave no figures for Hausen's loss, which is known to have been considerable. Lanrezac's management of the battle was severely criticised in France, and he was superseded soon after it by Franchet d'Esperey. But he had to contend with superior numbers and a deplorably bad strategic position, due to the German movement through Belgium and the sudden apparition of Hausen's army. If the line of the Sambre had been defended with more energy, Lanrezac could not have escaped, and could not, by saving the 5th army, have saved France.
The Germans regard the battle as a tactical success for themselves but a strategic failure, and such it was. Many of the advantages gained by the faithless advance through Belgium were lost when Lanrezac and French escaped the toils. Hausen was removed, ostensibly on the ground of ill-health, after the Marne, but really it would seem because the German Staff blamed him for failing to cut off the French. As Crusius points out, the real fault rested with the German high command, which failed to profit by an extraordinarily favourable situation.
In his book The March on Paris, General von Kluck states that the Germans only learnt on August the 22nd of the presence of British troops in front of the second army (Bulow), The more important was, it observes Kluck, that his own army, the first, should keep well to the westward, and so outflank the British, but an army order directed Kluck's army to wheel to the left in support of Bulow, and this order was upheld in spite of Kluck's appeal to the supreme command. He says that had he been free he could have outflanked the British army from the west, forced it back on the French fifth army (Lanrezao), and taken both in the rear. Research Battle of Charleroi
The Battle of Prairie Grove, Arkansas was a major defeat for the Confederates during the American Civil War. The Union leaders Blunt and Herron. with 12,000 troops defeated nearly twice as many Confederates under Hindman and Marmaduke, on December the 7th, 1862. Hindman attacked Herron while he was separated from the main command. Herron returned the attack, pushing his batteries across Illinois Creek and effectually silencing the Confederates for a time. Meanwhile Blunt arrived and attacked the Confederate flank, as it was about to execute a flank movement against Herron. This resulted in defeat for the Confederates though they occupied
a strong position. Research Battle of Prairie Grove
Ready is a military word of command, or a position, in the manual of arms, at which the piece is cocked and held in position to execute promptly the next command, which is, aim.
The Probert Encyclopaedia was designed, edited and programed by
Matt and Leela Probert
Abbreviations
Research Femgerichte
