← CatalogEngland · Book or treatise
The History of the Pleas of the Crown
Both volumes of Hale’s posthumously published History of the Pleas of the Crown. Checked passages connect the work to Dobbs and Crawford, with the surrounding historical context.
Requested text available. Collection target: Volumes 1 and 2 (1736).
Historia placitorum coronæ: The History of the Pleas of the Crown
Matthew Hale · Volume 1 · 1736
1 Matthew Hale, Historia placitorum coronæ: The History of the Pleas of the Crown (Sollom Emlyn ed., London, J. Gyles, T. Woodward, & C. Davis 1736)
Title page reads MDCCXXXVI (1736), visually verified. John Adams Library copy, Boston Public Library.
Open reader → Download this PDF
Source repository ↗
Use in constitutional interpretation
Samuel A. Alito Jr. · Majority opinion
Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Org., 597 U.S. 215, 243–45 (2022).
Alito cites Hale’s account of a woman “quick or great with child”: death in the womb is a great crime, but not murder or manslaughter. Hale treats a woman’s death from a potion intended to destroy the child as murder, distinguishing therapeutic treatment without an intent to harm. He treats later death from a prenatal blow, after live birth and baptism, as no homicide; Coke states a different rule.
Read printed 429–30, 433 →
The scan title page actually reads MDCCXXXVI (1736). This corrects an inherited manifest note that reported an irregular MDCCXXVI imprint. Place appears as In the Savoy, London. The work is first published from Hale’s manuscript, with Emlyn’s notes.
The title page at PDF page 5 reads MDCCXXXVI (1736), confirms Volume I, and identifies Sollom Emlyn’s editorial role. The earlier acquisition-manifest transcription MDCCXXVI is incorrect.
Printed pages 429–430 are PDF pages 469–470. Printed page 433 is PDF page 473. Every specified page and the surrounding context were visually checked.
Dobbs cites page 433 at 597 U.S. 243, pages 429–430 at 244, and page 429 again at 245. These are uses in Alito’s majority opinion.
Hale’s page 433 differs from Coke’s discussion concerning death after live birth from a prenatal stroke; preserve that distinction when synthesizing the authorities.
This is the posthumously published 1736 text, not proof of composition in 1736 or a new certification of the entire scan.
Historia placitorum coronæ: The History of the Pleas of the Crown
Matthew Hale · Volume 2 · 1736
2 Matthew Hale, Historia placitorum coronæ: The History of the Pleas of the Crown (Sollom Emlyn ed., London, F. Gyles, T. Woodward, & C. Davis 1736)
John Adams Library at the Boston Public Library, repository call number 39999046697684; digitized by the Internet Archive. No missing numbered content identified; sampled visual review, not a proofread of every page. Page 284 supports admission of written examinations in some cases and a death-or-sickness condition for the informer. It does not itself state a prior-opportunity-to-cross-examine requirement; Crawford examines that separate issue through other authorities. Hale distinguishes the accused’s unsworn examination from sworn information supplied by accusers and witnesses. His discussion also requires authentication and voluntary confession; it is not an unrestricted hearsay rule. This is Volume II of the two-volume History, first published posthumously in 1736. It is distinct from Hale’s shorter Pleas of the Crown, and the publication date is not its composition date. The original pagination repeats 149–156 with asterisks after page 156. These eight starred pages contain different text and are not duplicate scan images. John Adams Library provenance identifies this physical copy; it does not establish that Scalia consulted this copy.
Open reader → Download this PDF
Source repository ↗
Use in constitutional interpretation
Antonin Scalia · Opinion of the Court
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 44–45 (2004).
Scalia cites Hale’s page 284 to show that pretrial examinations were used at trial and were subject to limits based on witness unavailability. Hale permits written information when the informer is dead or too sick to travel, with sworn proof of that condition, and separately requires authentication and voluntary confession. This passage does not itself require a prior opportunity for cross-examination.
Read printed 284 →
Antonin Scalia · Opinion of the Court
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 52 (2004).
Scalia cites Hale’s account of the Marian statutes to distinguish sworn witness information from unsworn examinations of suspects. He uses that history when explaining why the absence of an oath does not remove a statement from the Confrontation Clause’s concern with testimonial evidence.
Read printed 52 →
The title page at PDF page 5 confirms Volume II, Sollom Emlyn’s editorial role, and MDCCXXXVI (1736). The publishers are F. Gyles, T. Woodward, and C. Davis.
Printed page 284 is PDF page 302. Crawford cites this page at 541 U.S. 44 and 45; both opinion pages and the historical passage were visually checked.
The original starred sequence 149*–156* appears at PDF pages 167–174, after unstarred page 156. The book itself explains this pagination at PDF page 433.
Page 284 supports admission of written examinations in some cases and a death-or-sickness condition for the informer. It does not itself state a prior-opportunity-to-cross-examine requirement; Crawford examines that separate issue through other authorities.
The text is posthumous. A citation to the 1736 edition should not identify its publication date as the date Hale formulated the rule.
