For the last several weeks, I have been working on reading through and cataloguing 18th century legal manuscripts within the Middle Temple Library. Having readily available and digitized information about the contents of manuscripts will allow easier access for researchers to the information they want to find. Thus far, I have found many interesting cases. From questions as to whether the theft of live pigeons was a felony to complex cases of financial fraud. Perhaps the most interesting thus far, however, is the case of theft from the Indian John Morgan in 1765 found within a manuscript of notes made at the Old Bailey from 1765-1769.[1]
On the surface, the case is very simple. Three prisoners allegedly stole money and several items of clothing from Morgan. Morgan's origins in India came up both in the crime and the legal proceedings, and it appears that two of the prisoners were found guilty. After this case, however, the manuscript records a following argument in court over whether John Morgan was guilty of perjury. What was unique about Morgan was that he was a "Mahometan" (an earlier English term for someone of the Muslim faith) and he was only willing to swear an oath on the Qur'an instead of the Bible. My assumption here was that the solution would be a fairly simple yes.
In contrast, however, the court came to a conclusion which upheld Morgan's testimony. Once the court had become "satisfied of the Belief of Mahometans in a Deity" they deemed the Qur'an "to be their method of being sworn". Seemingly the importance was in a valid belief that would make an oath taker stay honest instead of requiring a state sanctioned 'true God'. Hidden at the back of the manuscript, however, is a copy of a letter from "Mr Gould" (that is, Sir Henry Gould, 1710-1794) addressing the case written in 1784, nineteen years after the ruling. This letter provides an admonition on the ruling citing the importance of "corporal oaths". This was something, in Gould's eyes, that could only be undertaken by a Christian touching the Bible in front of the Christian God. According to Sir Henry's reasoning, Morgan's oath on the Qur'an made his testimony perjury. What happened to John Morgan does not seem public. Did the letter almost two decades later pertain to his actual future or simply to future theory? This case is useful, however, in letting us address the lives and trials of non-Western and non-Christian individuals within Britain in this period. Morgan was clearly a man of means: he had a significant amount of money stolen, as shown by the case. This lines up in name, location, and time to be the Indian John Morgan seen working with the artist George Stubbs during his paintings of exotic animals.[2] When a crime was committed, however, Morgan's testimony put him in danger with the Christian rigidity of the courts. Rare cases like these provide insight into the British system's struggles and resistances to adapting to a world in which differences such as other religions would more commonly find their way integrating and how this challenged existing institutions.
Jack Alphey, MA student King's College London
[1] https://www.middletemplelibrary.org.uk/client/en_GB/default/search/results?qu=ms47&te=
[2] Mark Sorrell, 'A Zebra, A Tigress, and a Cheetah: New Light on George Stubbs' Exotic Animal Subjects', British Art Journal, 15 (2014), https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA389175724&sid=googleScholar&v=2.1&it=r&linkaccess=abs&issn=14672006&p=AONE&sw=w&userGroupName=anon%7Efd5ab7ed? (accessed 28th February 2023).
No comments:
Post a Comment