Page:EB1911 - Volume 20.djvu/860

Rh vol. xxi. of Ordonnances des rois de France (1849), preceded by an Essai sur l’ancienne organisation judiciaire, which was reprinted in part in 1851. In 1843 Pardessus published a critical edition of the Loi salique, followed by 14 dissertations, which greatly advanced the knowledge of the subject. He died at Pimpeneau near Blois on the 27th of May 1853.

See notices in Journal general de l’instruction publique (July 27, 1853), in the Bibliothèque de l’école des chartes (3rd series, 1854, V. 453), and in the “Histoire de l’académie des inscriptions et belles lettres” (vol. xx. of the Mémoires de l’academie, 1861).

PARDO BAZÁN, EMILIA (1851–), Spanish author, was born at Corunna, Spain, on the 16th of September 1851. Married in her eighteenth year to Sr D. Jose Quiroga, a Galician country gentleman, she interested herself in politics, and is believed to have taken an active part in the subterranean campaign against Amadeo of Savoy and, later, against the republic. In 1876 she came into notice as the successful competitor for a literary prize offered by the municipality of Oviedo, the subject of her essay being the Benedictine monk, Benito Jeronimo Feijóo. This was followed by a series of articles inserted in La Ciencia cristiana, a magazine of the purest orthodoxy, edited by Juan M. Orti y Lara. Her first novel, Pascual Lopez (1879), is a simple exercise in fantasy of no remarkable promise, though it contains good descriptive passages of the romantic type. It was followed by a more striking story, Un Viaje de novios (1881), in which a discreet attempt was made to introduce into Spain the methods of French realism. The book caused a sensation among the literary cliques, and this sensation was increased by the appearance of another naturalistic tale. La Tribuna (1885), wherein the influence of Zola is unmistakable. Meanwhile, the writer’s reply to her critics was issued under the title of La Cuestión palpilante (1883), a clever piece of rhetoric, but of no special Value as regards criticism or dialectics. The naturalistic scenes of El Cisne de Vilamorta (1885) are more numerous, more pronounced, than in any of its predecessors, though the authoress shrinks from the logical application of her theories by supplying a romantic and inappropriate ending. Probably the best of Sra Pardo Bazan’s work is embodied in Los Pazos de Ulloa (1886), the painfully exact history of a decadent aristocratic family, as notable for its portraits of types like Nucha and Julián as for its creation of characters like those of the political bravos, Barbacana and Trampeta. Yet perhaps its most abiding merit lies in its pictures of country life, its poetic realization of Galician scenery set down in an elaborate, highly-coloured style, which, if not always academically correct, is invariably effective. A sequel, with the significant title of La Madre naturaleza (1887), marks a further advance in the path of naturalism, and henceforward Sra Pardo Bazán was universally recognized as one of the chiefs of the new naturalistic movement in Spain. The title was confirmed by the pubUcation of Insolacion and Morrina, both issued in 1889. In this year her reputation as a novelist reached its highest point. Her later stories. La Cristiana (1890), Cuenlos de amor (1894), Arco Iris (1895), Mistcrio (1903) and La Qiawera (1905), though not wanting in charm, awakened less interest. In 1905 she published a play entitled Verdad, remarkable for its boldness rather than for its dramatic quaUties.

PARDOE, JULIA (1806–1862), English writer, was born at Beverley, Yorkshire, in 1806. When fourteen years old she published a volume of poems. In 1835 she went to Constantinople and her experiences there furnished her with material for vivid pictures of Eastern life in the City of the Sultan (1837), Romance of the Harem (1839) and Beauties of the Bosphorus (1839). Her other works, not always historically accurate, include Louis XI V. and the Court of France in the Seventeenth Century (1847); The Court and Reign of Francis /.(1849); The Life and Memoirs of Marie de Medici (1852); Episodes of French History during the Consulate and the First Empire (1859); and several sprightly and pleasant novels. In 1860 she was granted a civil list pension. She died on the 26th of November 1862.

PARDON (through the Fr. from Late Lat. perdonare, to remit a debt or other obligation on a penalty), the remission, by the power entrusted with the execution of the laws, of the penalty attached to a crime. The right of pardoning is coextensive with the right of punishing. In a perfect legal system, says Beccaria, pardons should be excluded, for the clemency of the prince seems a tacit disapprobation of the laws (Dei Delitti e delle pene, ch. xx.). In practice the prerogative is extremely valuable, when used with discretion, as a means of adjusting the different degrees of moral guilt in crimes or of rectifying a miscarriage of justice. By the law of England pardon is the sole prerogative of the king, and it is declared by 27 Hen. VIII. c. 24 that no other person has power to pardon or remit any treasons or felonies whatsoever. This position follows logically from the theory of English law that all offences are breaches of the king’s peace. Indictments still conclude with a statement that the offence was committed “against the peace of our lord king, his crown and dignity.” The Crown by pardon only remits the penalty for an attack upon itself. The prerogative is in modern times exercised by delegation, the Crown acting upon the representation of the secretary of state for the home department in Great Britain, or of the lord lieutenant in Ireland. The prerogative of the Crown is subject to some restrictions: (1) The committing of a subject of the realm to a prison out of the realm is by the Habeas Corpus Act a praemunire, unpardonable even by the king (31 Car. II. c. 2, § 12). (2) The king cannot pardon an offence in a matter of private rather than of public wrong, so as to prejudice the person injured by the offence. Thus a common nuisance cannot be pardoned while it remains unredressed, or so as to prevent an abatement of it. A fine or penalty imposed for the offence may, however, be remitted. By an act of 1859 (22 Vict. c. 32) his majesty is enabled to remit wholly or in part any sum of money imposed upon conviction, and, if the offender has been imprisoned in default of payment, to extend to him the royal mercy. There are other statutes dealing with special offences, e.g. by the Remission of Penalties Act 1875 his majesty may remit any penalty imposed under 21 Geo. III. c. 49 (an act for preventing certain abuses and profanations on the Lord’s Day called Sunday). (3) The king’s pardon cannot be pleaded in bar of an impeachment. This principle, first asserted by a resolution of the House of Commons in the earl of Danby’s case (May 5, 1679), forms one of the provisions of the Act of Settlement, 12 & 13 Will. III. c. 2. It is there enacted “that no pardon under the great seal of England shall be plead able to an impeachment by the Commons in parliament,” § 3, This provision does not extend to abridging the prerogative after the impeachment has been heard and determined. Thus three of the rebel lords were pardoned after impeachment and attainder in 1715. (4) In the case of treason, murder or rape a pardon is ineffectual unless the offence be particularly specified therein (13 Rich. II. c. i, § 2). Before the Bill of Rights, i Will. & M. c. 2, § 2, this statute seems to have been frequently evaded by a non obstante clause. But, since by the Bill of Rights no dispensation by non obstante is allowed, general words contrary to the statute of Richard II. would seem to be ineffectual.

Pardon may be actual or constructive. Actual pardon is by warrant under the great seal, or under the sign-manual countersigned by a secretary of state (7 & 8 Geo. IV. c. 28, § 13). Constructive pardon is obtained by endurance of the punishment. By 9 Geo. IV. c. 32, § 3, the endurance of a punishment on conviction of a felony not capital has the same effect as a pardon under the great seal. This principle is reaffirmed in the Larceny Act 1861, § 109, and in the Malicious Injuries to Property Act 1861, § 67. Further, pardon may be free or conditional. A conditional pardon most commonly occurs where an offender sentenced to death has his sentence commuted to penal servitude or any less punishment. The condition of his pardon is the endurance by him of the substituted punishment. The effect of pardon, whether actual or constructive, is to put the person pardoned in the position of an innocent man, so that he may have