Fall Term 1828
State } No. 19
Burglary{ Pleads "Not Guilty" vs } { The following Jury Dennis (a Slave) } { empanelled & sworn { (1) James Meacham (2) George Wright (3) John Gibson (4) Silas Jones (5) Lemuel Chance (6) Wilie Chance (7) Thomas Bostick (8) Ananias Graham (9) James LeGrand (10) Elias Pate (11) Hugh McLean (12) George Hunesucker ... Who find the Dfd't not guilty of the Burglary as charged in the Bill of Indtmt; but guilty of Grand Larceny....
The prisoner appeared at the Bar and being asked by the Court If he had any thing to say why sentence of death should not be pronounced against him; replied by his Council, praying the Benefit of his Clergy; which was allowed; and the prisoner Dennis, to be taken to the Whipping Post and receive Thirty nine lashes on his Bare Back. Sentence to be carried into effect at 4 O'clock P. M. on Saturday.
| State | } | No. 19 Burglary | { | Pleads "Not Guilty" |
| vs | } | { | The following Jury | |
| Dennis (a Slave) | } | { | empanelled & sworn | |
| { | (1) James Meacham | |||
| (2) George Wright | (3) John Gibson | |||
| (4) Silas Jones | (5) Lemuel Chance | |||
| (6) Wilie Chance | (7) Thomas Bostick | |||
| (8) Ananias Graham | (9) James LeGrand | |||
| (10) Elias Pate | (11) Hugh McLean | |||
| (12) George Hunesucker ... | ||||
Spring Term 1832
State } No. 19
Burglary{ The following Jury vs } { empanelled & sworn—viz. Harry (a Slave) } { (1) Alexander Shaw (2) Cyrus Bennet (3) Try McFarland (4) George Wright (5) Silas Jones (6) John Gibson (7) Barton C. Everett (8) William Everett (9) Jno McAlister (10) William Strickland (11) Francis T. Leak (12) Peter H. Cole Who find the Dfdt guilty in manner and form as charged in the Bill of Indictment.
The Prisoner appearing at the Bar, being asked by the Court if he had any thing to say why sentence of Death should not be heaped against him, replied through his Council praying the Benefit of his Clergy.... Which was allowed ... and he was sentenced to be carried to the whipping Post and there to receive Twenty Lashes on his bare Back.... Sentence to be carried into effect at 4 Oclock this afternoon.
| State | } | No. 19 Burglary | { | The following Jury |
| vs | } | { | empanelled & sworn—viz. | |
| Harry (a Slave) | } | { | (1) Alexander Shaw | |
| (2) Cyrus Bennet | (3) Try McFarland | |||
| (4) George Wright | (5) Silas Jones | |||
| (6) John Gibson | (7) Barton C. Everett | |||
| (8) William Everett | (9) Jno McAlister | |||
| (10) William Strickland | (11) Francis T. Leak | |||
| (12) Peter H. Cole | ||||
Investigation of the law pertaining to benefit of clergy in the slave-holding States reveals the following facts. It existed for a longer or shorter time in Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, the Carolinas, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Kentucky, Arkansas, and Missouri. Slaves were admitted to benefit of clergy in Virginia in 1732, and although the privilege was abolished as it applied to free persons in 1796, it remained legal for slaves until 1848. Likewise Kentucky withdrew the privilege from whites in 1798 but did not deny it to slaves until 1852. Alabama admitted slaves to benefit of clergy in 1805, but in 1807 all laws, customs and usages relating to Benefit of Clergy were abolished. Slaves were admitted to the privilege in North Carolina in 1816, and it was not denied them until benefit of clergy was abolished in 1854. In the other slave-holding States slaves were not admitted to benefit of clergy by statute but a law of Maryland of 1751 which imposed the death penalty on slaves without benefit of clergy implies that the privilege prevailed there through custom. Benefit of clergy was abolished in Maryland in 1809, in Georgia in 1817, in Mississippi in 1822, in Arkansas in 1838, in Delaware in 1852, in Missouri in 1845, and in South Carolina some time during the reconstruction period.
An interesting feature of benefit of clergy was its relation to the amelioration of the criminal law. In this respect there is a parallel between English and American practice. The English statute of 1706 (5 Anne 6) provided that "if any person shall be convicted of any such felony, for which he ought to have had the benefit of his clergy, if this act had not been made, and shall pray to have the benefit of this act, he shall not be required to read, but without reading, shall be allowed, taken and reputed to be, and punished as, a clerk convict, which shall be as effectual to all intents and purposes, and be as advantageous to him, as if he had read as a clerk; anything in this act, or any other law or statute, to the contrary notwithstanding." Thus benefit of clergy was extended to all classes in England.
A few years later Delaware adopted the principle of the English statute: "that if any person convicted of any such felony as is hereby made capital, for which he ought by the laws of Great Britain to have the benefit of clergy, and shall pray to have the benefit of this act; he shall not be required to read, but without any reading shall be allowed, taken and reputed, and punished as a clerk convict," etc. Likewise Virginia in 1732 adopted the application of benefit of clergy as laid down in the statute of Anne: "and if any person be convicted of a felony, for which he ought to have the benefit of clergy, and shall pray to have the benefit of this act, he shall not be required to read, but without any reading, shall be allowed, taken, and reputed to be, and punished as a clerk convict; which shall be as effectual, to all intents and purposes, and as advantageous to him as if he had read as a clerk; and any other law or statute, to the contrary notwithstanding." Thus, in the language of Pike, "a relic of extreme barbarism" became "the first step towards a modification of the previous laws which deprived a man of his life by a brutal mode of execution for a very petty transaction." (A History of Crime in England, II, 281.)
Another parallel between English and American experience was in the abolition of benefit of clergy. In Virginia and Kentucky it was denied to free persons when servitude in a penitentiary was substituted for most of the older penalties for felonies. These states anticipated the policy of England, for benefit of clergy was not there abolished and service in workhouses substituted for existing penalties until 1827. The Virginia policy adopted in 1796 was due to some extent to the example of Pennsylvania which revised its penal system in 1786. The abolition of benefit of clergy in most of the other Southern States was contemporaneous with revisions of the criminal codes.