205 structions. The first prescribes that the priest could hold a sermon, admonish or read prayers direct from the book: in the second case the priest is given detailed explanatory directions: the third gives no directives, the prisoner being concerned as a soul in need and confronted by immediate death. The clergy were involved in this conflict between State and Church and the condemned. In some cases the conflict was very hard. One such conflict-situation concerned how the clergy was to question the prisoner who refused to admit his guilt. Certain clergymen believed that if a criminal proclaimed his innocence this could be used as an argument to gain postponement and eventual pardon for the person concerned. It also happened that a clergyman could, in the traditional manner, consider that if a prisoner confessed his crime for a priest and was given absolution, he was free from admining this before the court. Another point of viewwas very common during the first half of the 19th century, and it had its base on neologist theology, according to which absolution was to be conditional and that faith and conversion should be manifest in conduct and that one of the prison chaplain’s duties was to encourage prisoners, who had not been convicted, to confess. Certain priests concluded that those who had not confessed their crime before a court, could not be absolved. The public admittance of guilt became a condition for absolution. In a regulation in the Lawof 1734, but rescinded in 1864, it was statuted that cases of ‘obvious spiritual anguish’ on the part of the condemned, were to be reported to the highest instances.^ From 1778 this was always the Crown. Juridical doctrine gave no instructions as to what was to be done in these cases. Twelve officially treated cases have been examined. Also in some cases report has been dealt with on a lower level and never left to the correct authority or ‘obvious spiritual anguish’ has been introduced by the court without any previous notification. In two cases this has led to a pardon. In one case, however, the doctor’s opinion that the accused was not in his right mind proved decisive. The others were executed. The question came at first hand to concern just how long postponement could be tolerated in order to give the clergy an opportunity to correct this mental state by suitable preparation. Seen generally, it seems that during the 1700’s postponement was seen with much more generous eyes than during the following century. Perhaps we should also take into consideration that the normal time of preparation was lengthened from roughly two weeks during the 18th century, to six weeks in the 19th century. No provision concerning this period of preparation was ever made and praxis varied fromcase to case. Since two cases where decided in 1827, the Crown seems not to have dealt with this type of thing with any regularity. They were usually answered by giving the Provincial Governor orders to decide a date for the execution. ^ Obvious spiritual anguish; Extreme danger to the soul (eternal damnation etc.). Tr.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=