must restore not only the amount, but many-fold. If the thief runs away, the man whom he has robbed need not trouble himself, for he has only to levy on his nearest relations. Anybody belonging to the family will do. He may seize the property of a brother or cousin, who in turn must look after his rascally kinsman. This is better than all the laws in the world against stealing, at least all laws which could be administered against Arabs on the desert, for it enlists the family feeling, which is stronger than the sense of right and wrong, or even the fear of individual punishment. A man who commits a theft brings retribution on his whole household, who must suffer if he escapes, while in any case his act covers them with disgrace.
As to offences against the person, there is one rigid and inexorable law — a law older than Roman law, for Moses found it on the desert more than three thousand years ago; it is the lex talionis — blood for blood, life for life. We questioned the sheikh very closely in regard to the blood feud, of which we had heard so much. He answered, without any reserve, that by the immemorial laws of the Arabs, if one of the tribe killed another, the brother of the murdered man could take the law into his own hands, and kill the murderer. Not only was he at liberty to do so, but he must do it — it was a point of honor, the neglect of which would be a disgrace. If the murderer ran away, then the slayer need not go in pursuit of him. There is no "law's delay" on the desert to prevent his taking his revenge. If he cannot find the murderer, he may kill the murderer's brother, or his cousin. I believe the license of revenge does no farther go than to this degree of relationship; but within this range of consanguinity the avenger may exact life for life. To this extent indeed he must go. Some life he must take. The blood of his brother cries from the ground, and must not go unavenged. But if he kills the brother or
