1,99 €
Niedrigster Preis in 30 Tagen: 1,99 €
Niedrigster Preis in 30 Tagen: 1,99 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: Booksell-Verlag
- Kategorie: Abenteuer, Thriller, Horror
- Sprache: Englisch
In "The Law of the Four Just Men," Edgar Wallace weaves a compelling narrative that blends mystery and social critique. This thrilling tale follows four vigilantes who take justice into their own hands, targeting evildoers who escape the legal system. Wallace's hallmark prose exhibits sharp dialogue and intricate plotting, reflective of the early 20th-century fascination with crime and morality. The novel operates within the ambit of British detective fiction, a genre gaining momentum during Wallace's time, while simultaneously examining the themes of justice and societal complicity in crime, making it a precursor to modern legal thrillers. Edgar Wallace, an influential figure in the genre, was born in 1875 and became known for his prolific writing and extensive contributions to mystery and crime fiction. His own tumultuous upbringing and experience as a journalist likely informed his portrayal of law, order, and the moral ambiguities surrounding justice. Wallace's engagement with his contemporary society's legal system and its shortcomings resonates through his characters, making them both relatable and enigmatic. This book is essential for readers interested in the evolution of crime literature and the exploration of justice. Wallace's keen insights into human nature and societal flaws invite readers to question conventions while enjoying a riveting plot. Fans of classic detective fiction will find "The Law of the Four Just Men" a captivating addition to their collection. In this enriched edition, we have carefully created added value for your reading experience: - A succinct Introduction situates the work's timeless appeal and themes. - The Synopsis outlines the central plot, highlighting key developments without spoiling critical twists. - A detailed Historical Context immerses you in the era's events and influences that shaped the writing. - A thorough Analysis dissects symbols, motifs, and character arcs to unearth underlying meanings. - Reflection questions prompt you to engage personally with the work's messages, connecting them to modern life. - Hand‐picked Memorable Quotes shine a spotlight on moments of literary brilliance. - Interactive footnotes clarify unusual references, historical allusions, and archaic phrases for an effortless, more informed read.
Das E-Book können Sie in Legimi-Apps oder einer beliebigen App lesen, die das folgende Format unterstützen:
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2020
Ähnliche
The Law of the Four Just Men
Table of Contents
Introduction
When official justice proves inadequate, a clandestine brotherhood steps forward to impose a more ruthless code. In The Law of the Four Just Men, Edgar Wallace returns to the formidable vigilantes whose methods test the boundary between legality and necessity. Written in the early twentieth century, the novel belongs to the British crime-and-thriller tradition that delights in mounting tension and moral ambiguity. Wallace shapes a tight, purposeful narrative that focuses less on courtroom procedure and more on clandestine strategy, inviting readers to weigh not only what is done but why it is done—and what it costs to do it.
This book is part of Wallace’s celebrated Four Just Men series, a cycle of adventures centered on an elite group operating beyond conventional policing. Rooted in early twentieth-century sensibilities, it evokes a Britain—and a wider Europe—alive with political intrigue, shifting alliances, and public debates about order and security. Readers will recognize the genre’s hallmarks: the ingenious plot, the breathless chase, and the clash between official authority and a shadowy counterforce. Without demanding prior knowledge, the novel situates itself within a narrative continuum where the group’s ethos is paramount, and where each episode tests the resilience of their self-imposed law.
The premise is disarmingly simple: where the formal machinery of justice cannot—or will not—act, the Four Just Men intervene. Their operations are precise and covert, aimed at figures deemed beyond the reach of ordinary penalties. Authorities, never far behind, pursue them with increasing determination, creating a measured dance of pursuit and evasion. Wallace balances the thrill of secret plans with the unease of their implications, ensuring that the stakes remain human as well as legal. The result is a story that offers the pleasures of a high-stakes chase while preserving the mystery of motive and method, free of sensational excess.
Readers can expect a brisk, economical style, in which suspense accumulates through careful setup and well-timed reversals. Wallace’s background in popular fiction animates the pacing: scenes move quickly, dialogue serves the plot, and settings—from government corridors to dim backstreets—suggest the reach and resourcefulness of the protagonists. The mood is taut rather than lurid, emphasizing calculation over spectacle and craft over coincidence. The pleasure here lies in the mechanics of strategy, the calibration of risks, and the sudden revelation that reframes a prior assumption. It is an experience built on urgency, clarity, and the steady tightening of narrative coils.
At its core, the novel probes the ethics of vigilantism: whether the rectification of wrongs can justify the suspension of due process. Wallace neither sermonizes nor absolves; instead, he compels readers to inhabit the unsettling space where admirable intentions collide with dangerous precedents. Themes of loyalty, secrecy, and responsibility intertwine with questions about the legitimacy of power—state power, private power, and the quiet coercion of fear. The title’s emphasis on law underscores a paradox: the group’s insistence on their own code, even as they challenge the statute books that bind everyone else. The tension is intellectual as much as it is dramatic.
For contemporary readers, the book resonates as a lens on recurring civic dilemmas. How should society respond to corruption, impunity, or institutional paralysis? What happens when charismatic actors step into that void, promising swift and certain remedies? The novel anticipates modern debates about security and rights, accountability and expediency, inviting reflection without prescribing conclusions. Its appeal lies not only in the thrills but in the questions that linger after the action subsides. By embedding these issues in a propulsive narrative, Wallace renders the ethical stakes immediate, allowing readers to test their instincts against the cool logic of the plot.
Approached today, The Law of the Four Just Men offers both a classic thriller’s satisfactions and a durable test of conviction. It stands within Edgar Wallace’s prolific body of work as an exemplar of tension driven by ideas as well as events, and it can be enjoyed by newcomers to the series and returning readers alike. Those who appreciate moral puzzles, cleanly engineered suspense, and the chiaroscuro of right and might will find much to admire. Above all, the novel frames the oldest questions of justice in a swift, engaging form—leaving space for readers to decide where the line should be drawn.
Synopsis (Selection)
Edgar Wallaces The Law of the Four Just Men returns to the clandestine brotherhood of vigilantes whose private code places them outside conventional justice. The narrative opens by reestablishing their purpose: to redress crimes that escape legal remedy through wealth, position, or political protection. Their operations are international but often converge on London, where official scrutiny is strongest. The book frames their conduct as governed by a rigorous internal law that dictates when they intervene, the warnings they issue, and the limits they observe. This premise anchors a sequence of linked episodes that test the precision and resilience of their methods without resolving their identities for the authorities.
Early chapters sketch the groups composition and working habits, emphasizing discipline over impulsiveness. The men plan meticulously, assemble intelligence through discreet networks, and use veiled communications that leave little trace. An initial intervention demonstrates their pattern: a private warning, an opportunity to yield, and, if ignored, a sanction delivered with restraint aimed at preventing further harm. Wallace sets this against the watchful efforts of police and officials determined to curtail private justice. The tone is procedural rather than sensational, highlighting logistics, timing, and impersonality. With each move, the book underscores the contrast between public law, bounded by proof and process, and the quartets self-imposed rulebook.
The first major case introduces a figure whose influence has shielded wrongdoing from prosecution. The Four quietly audit the persons affairs, identify the vulnerable point that can halt the misconduct, and send a measured ultimatum. Their law requires certainty of guilt and proportionality of response, leading to an operation that neutralizes the harm without open violence. Surveillance, coded messages, and misdirection feature prominently, revealing the groups preference for pressure over spectacle. The episode establishes a template: redress is sought not through courts but through undeniable compulsion that leaves the target with no profitable path but compliance. The authorities register the method but cannot trace its authors.
As news of the episode spreads, official response intensifies. A methodical investigator studies the pattern of warnings and outcomes, mapping similarities across jurisdictions. Wallace follows police deliberations, legal commentary, and the administrative constraints that limit overt action. The pursuit relies on inference rather than evidence, pushing investigators toward traps and decoys the Four anticipate. This parallel track introduces the series persistent dynamic: watchful power facing an adversary who concedes nothing to chance. The Just Mens law prescribes minimum publicity, swift execution, and swift withdrawal, frustrating surveillance. The chapters alternate between hunters and hunted, maintaining the alignment of events without disclosing decisive captures or defeats.
A subsequent affair raises a difficulty central to the quartets code: intervention where legal processes exist but may fail. Here, witnesses fear reprisal, and documents are controlled by the very people under suspicion. The Four debate their threshold for action, weighing the risk of misjudgment against the prospect of continued harm. Their internal discipline is shown through cautious verification and contingency plans designed to avoid collateral damage. When they proceed, they do so by isolating the leverage point that reforms behavior without creating public scandal. The episode clarifies that their law is restrictive as well as enabling: they act only when evidence satisfies their own standards, and they stop short of unnecessary force.
Midway, the narrative expands scope to a networked conspiracy whose operations cross borders and exploit legal loopholes. The Just Men modify their method, coordinating with intermediaries and timing interventions across cities to prevent counteraction. Wallace articulates aspects of their law explicitly: unanimity in decision, a duty to warn, an obligation to limit harm, and acceptance of personal risk in preference to endangering bystanders. The oppositions resources force the Four to extend their reach while preserving secrecy. The heightened scale tests logistics and patience, and the book lays out the phases of planning, rehearsal, and execution without revealing the ultimate disposition of the adversaries.
Public debate becomes a theme as press and politicians argue over vigilantism. Editorials describe the Four as either a symptom of legal inadequacy or a violation of the social contract. Courtroom scenes and legislative discussions examine evidentiary burdens, prosecutorial discretion, and the boundary between moral certainty and legal proof. The Just Men exploit this environment by directing information where it will trigger lawful consequences, thereby substituting official penalties for their own where possible. Their law thus appears as a complement to public law, stepping in only when formal channels cannot or will not act. The tension between the two systems shapes subsequent operations and responses.
The closing movement concentrates several threads into a complex operation that demands precision and restraint. Multiple decoys, staggered communications, and converging teams create a sequence where a single error could expose them. A late discovery forces a choice between strict adherence to their code and an adjustment that risks visibility to spare unintended harm. Wallace details preparations and contingencies while withholding final outcomes, emphasizing the irrevocability of choices once warnings are issued. The authorities draw close, narrowing possibilities, yet the Four rely on timing and prior groundwork. The result preserves the books focus on process, consequence, and the costs attached to acting outside statute.
In conclusion, The Law of the Four Just Men consolidates the series premise: a disciplined collective imposes a private standard of justice where legal mechanisms fail or falter. The narratives sequence demonstrates how their code shapes every decision, from selection of targets to the measured application of pressure and the avoidance of collateral harm. Without resolving the central chase, the book leaves the groups future open and the legitimacy of their methods contested. Its core message presents a contrast rather than a verdict: the capability of individuals to enforce a moral law versus the necessity of public law to preserve accountability, with all the ambiguity that entails.
Historical Context
Published in 1921, The Law of the Four Just Men is set largely in London and other European urban centers at the cusp of the interwar era, a landscape defined by post-World War I surveillance, bureaucratic ministries, and the press-saturated streets of Whitehall and the City. The milieu is one of heightened police powers, a public sensitized to espionage and political violence, and a metropolis transformed by motorcars, telephones, and mass circulation newspapers. The narrative’s cosmopolitan reach—touching Spain and the Continent—mirrors real transnational networks of radicals and detectives. This time and place accentuate the novel’s central tension: the clash between codified law and extralegal retribution in a security-conscious Britain.
Across Europe between the 1890s and 1910s, anarchist violence and targeted assassinations unsettled governments. Notable incidents included the killing of Spanish Prime Minister Antonio Cánovas del Castillo at Santa Águeda in 1897, King Umberto I of Italy in Monza in 1900, and U.S. President William McKinley in 1901. In Britain, the Houndsditch murders (16 December 1910) and the Siege of Sidney Street (3 January 1911) in London’s East End dramatized fears of armed conspirators; Winston Churchill, as Home Secretary, appeared at the siege. The novel channels these realities through its depiction of conspiratorial cells and methodical counter-plots, framing vigilantism as a response to perceived failures of conventional state protection.
Debates over asylum, extradition, and the political-offence exception decisively shaped the context for Wallace’s series. Britain’s Extradition Act 1870 famously protected political offenders from extradition, reinforcing a 19th-century tradition that had sheltered figures like Giuseppe Mazzini and Peter Kropotkin in London. Pressure mounted after the Fenian dynamite campaign (1883–1885), when bombs targeted London Bridge, Victoria Station, and the Tower of London; the Special Irish Branch (later Special Branch) was created in 1883. The Walsall Anarchists case in 1892 and European outrages in the 1890s–1900s amplified calls to curtail refuge for violent radicals. The Aliens Act 1905 imposed the first peacetime restrictions on immigration, aimed largely at East European arrivals, and rebalanced Britain’s self-image as an open haven. In 1905 Wallace’s inaugural Four Just Men novel dramatized this policy nexus by pitting the vigilantes against a Foreign Secretary over a proposed bill that would weaken protections for political refugees, crystallizing the friction between humanitarian asylum and national security. The 1921 sequel’s very title—The Law of the Four Just Men—signals a renewed engagement with this legal crucible: after a world war that normalized emergency powers, how far should law bend to protect the state, and what moral code emerges when the state is seen to compromise liberty for security? In re-staging conflicts over extradition and state prerogative, the book speaks to a Britain in which the political-offence exception was under strain, borders were being policed more tightly, and public debates over who merited protection—and who merited punishment—had grown sharper. The vigilantes’ transnational scope, moving between London and Continental safe houses, echoes contemporary arguments about jurisdictional gaps that allowed militants and spies to evade national courts.
Wartime and postwar legislation institutionalized a new security state. The Official Secrets Act 1911 (notably Section 2) criminalized unauthorized disclosure across government, and the Act was significantly expanded in 1920 to widen police powers and the range of restricted places. The Defence of the Realm Act (DORA), enacted in August 1914, granted sweeping controls over censorship, movement, and property during the war. Intelligence agencies were newly formalized: the Secret Service Bureau (1909) split into MI5 (domestic security under Vernon Kell) and MI6 (foreign intelligence under Mansfield Cumming). The novel’s plots of documents, surveillance, and quiet persecutions reflect this mesh of secrecy laws and clandestine bureaucracies.
Modern policing techniques transformed criminal pursuit in London. The Metropolitan Police established a Fingerprint Bureau in 1901 under Commissioner Edward Henry, institutionalizing the Henry Classification System developed in India with Azizul Haque and Hem Chandra Bose. Motorized response units culminated in the creation of the Flying Squad in 1919 to combat armed smash-and-grab gangs. Scotland Yard’s Criminal Investigation Department professionalized detection through record-keeping, photography, and coordinated telegraph and telephone networks. The book’s cat-and-mouse dynamics turn on the plausibility of evasion within such a system: the Four Just Men succeed only by anticipating forensic routines and exploiting gaps between jurisdictions and departments, a hallmark anxiety of early 20th-century urban policing.
The Irish revolutionary period profoundly affected British security culture. After the Easter Rising in Dublin (April 1916), the Irish War of Independence (1919–1921) brought guerrilla warfare to the British Isles. The Black and Tans and Auxiliary Division were deployed in 1920; on Bloody Sunday (21 November 1920), British forces opened fire at Croke Park, killing 14 civilians, after Michael Collins’s Squad targeted British intelligence personnel that morning. The Anglo-Irish Treaty (6 December 1921) ended the war but not the wider crisis. The novel channels a climate in which clandestine cells, informers, and reprisals felt immediate and domestic, intensifying public tolerance for drastic, even extralegal, methods in the name of order.
Postwar unrest and transnational radicalism shaped anxieties that the book mirrors. The Russian Revolution of 1917 catalyzed British fears of Bolshevism; Red Clydeside peaked in January 1919 with mass demonstrations in Glasgow’s George Square. The Police Strikes of 1918 and 1919 prompted the Police Act 1919 and creation of the Police Federation; the Emergency Powers Act 1920 enabled swift executive responses to strikes, notably during the miners’ dispute of 1921. In Spain, the CNT (founded 1910) and the Pistolerismo violence in Barcelona (1919–1923) illustrated urban political gunfights that resonated across Europe. Wallace’s depiction of cosmopolitan vigilantism—and Spanish-linked protagonists—absorbs this cross-border volatility where ideologies, money, and weapons flow beyond any single legal system.
As a social and political critique, the book exposes the brittleness of early 20th-century legality when confronted by organized violence and official secrecy. By elevating vigilant protagonists who outpace ministries and police, it indicts sluggish procedure, class-protective privilege, and the discretionary use of emergency powers that blur due process. The narrative’s attention to immigration controls, espionage law, and extraterritorial flight tests whether justice should be constrained by national frontiers or bureaucratic rules. In foregrounding efficient conspirators and ambivalent officials, the novel questions whose security is prioritized—elites sheltered by law or citizens harmed by its loopholes—and suggests that the moral authority of the state depends on transparent, impartial, and proportionate enforcement.
The Law of the Four Just Men
The Man Who Lived at Clapham
THE MAN WHO LIVED AT CLAPHAM
"The jury cannot accept the unsupported suggestion—unsupported even by the prisoner's testimony since he has not gone into the box—that Mr. Noah Stedland is a blackmailer and that he obtained a large sum of money from the prisoner by this practice. That is a defence which is rather suggested by the cross-examination than by the production of evidence. The defence does not even tell us the nature of the threat which Stedland employed ..."
The remainder of the summing up was creditable to the best traditions of the Bar, and the jury, without retiring, returned a verdict of "Guilty".
There was a rustle of movement in the court and a thin babble of whispered talk as the Judge fixed his pince-nez and began to write.
The man in the big oaken pen looked down at the pale drawn face of a girl turned to him from the well of the court and smiled encouragingly. For his part, he did not blanch and his grave eyes went back to the figure on the Bench—the puce-gowned, white-headed figure that was writing so industriously. What did a Judge write on these occasions, he wondered? Surely not a precis of the crime. He was impatient now to have done with it all; this airy court, these blurred rows of pink faces in the gloom of the public gallery, the indifferent counsel and particularly with the two men who had sat near the lawyer's pews watching him intently.
He wondered who they were, what interest they had in the proceedings. Perhaps they were foreign authors, securing first-hand impressions. They had the appearance of foreigners. One was very tall (he had seen him rise to his feet once), the other was slight and gave an impression of boyishness, though his hair was grey. They were both clean-shaven and both were dressed in black and balanced on their knees broad-brimmed hats of soft black felt.
A cough from the Judge brought his attention back to the Bench.
"Jeffrey Storr," said his lordship, "I entirely agree with the verdict of the jury. Your defence that Stedland robbed you of your savings and that you broke into his house for the purpose of taking the law into your own hands and securing the money and a document, the character of which you do not specify but which you allege proved his guilt, could not be considered seriously by any Court of Justice. Your story sounds as though you had read of that famous, or infamous, association called the Four Just Men, which existed some years ago, but which is now happily dispersed. Those men set themselves to punish where the law failed. It is a monstrous assumption that the law ever fails[1q]! You have committed a very serious offence, and the fact that you were at the moment of your arrest and capture in possession of a loaded revolver, serves very gravely to aggravate your crime. You will be kept in penal servitude for seven years."
Jeffrey Storr bowed and without so much as a glance at the girl in the court, turned and descended the steps leading to the cells.
The two foreign-looking men who had excited the prisoner's interest and resentment were the first to leave the court.
Once in the street the taller of the two stopped.
"I think we will wait for the girl," he said.
"Is she the wife?" asked the slight man.
"Married the week he made his unfortunate investment," replied the tall man, then, "It was a curious coincidence, that reference of the Judge's to the Four Just Men."
The other smiled.
"It was in that very court that you were sentenced to death, Manfred," he said, and the man called Manfred nodded.
"I wondered whether the old usher would remember me," he answered, "he has a reputation for never forgetting a face. Apparently the loss of my beard has worked a miracle, for I actually spoke to him. Here she is."
Fortunately the girl was alone. A beautiful face, thought Gonsalez, the younger of the two men. She held her chin high and there was no sign of tears. As she walked quickly toward Newgate Street they followed her. She crossed the road into Hatton Garden and then it was that Manfred spoke.
"Pardon me, Mrs. Storr," he said, and she turned and stared at the foreign-looking man suspiciously.
"If you are a reporter——" she began.
"I'm not," smiled Manfred, "nor am I a friend of your husband's, though I thought of lying to you in that respect in order to find an excuse for talking to you."
His frankness procured her interest.
"I do not wish to talk about poor Jeffrey's terrible trouble," she said. "I just want to be alone."
Manfred nodded.
"I understand that," he said sympathetically, "but I wish to be a friend of your husband's and perhaps I can help him. The story he told in the box was true—you thought that too, Leon?"
Gonsalez nodded.
"Obviously true," he said, "I particularly noticed his eyelids. When a man lies he blinks at every repetition of the lie. Have you observed, my dear George, that men cannot tell lies when their hands are clenched and that when women lie they clasp their hands together?"
She looked at Gonsalez in bewilderment. She was in no mood for a lecture on the physiology of expression and even had she known that Leon Gonsalez was the author of three large books which ranked with the best that Lombroso or Mantegazza had given to the world, she would have been no more willing to listen.
"The truth is, Mrs. Storr," said Manfred, interpreting her new distress, "we think that we can free your husband and prove his innocence[2q]. But we want as many facts about the case as we can get."
She hesitated only a moment.
"I have some furnished lodgings in Gray's Inn Road," she said, "perhaps you will be good enough to come with me."
"My lawyer does not think there is any use in appealing against the sentence," she went on as they fell in one on either side of her.
Manfred shook his head.
"The Appeal Court would uphold the sentence," he said quietly, "with the evidence you have there is no possibility of your husband being released."
She looked round at him in dismay and now he saw that she was very near to tears.
"I thought ... you said ...?" she began a little shakily.
Manfred nodded.
"We know Stedland," he said, "and——"
"The curious thing about blackmailers, is that the occiput is hardly observable," interrupted Gonsalez thoughtfully. "I examined sixty-two heads in the Spanish prisons and in every case the occipital protuberance was little more than a bony ridge. Now in homicidal heads the occiput sticks out like a pigeon's egg."
"My friend is rather an authority upon the structure of the head," smiled Manfred. "Yes, we know Stedland. His operations have been reported to us from time to time. You remember the Wellingford case, Leon?"
Gonsalez nodded.
"Then you are detectives?" asked the girl.
Manfred laughed softly.
"No, we are not detectives—we are interested in crime. I think we have the best and most thorough record of the unconvicted criminal class of any in the world."
They walked on in silence for some time.
"Stedland is a bad man," nodded Gonsalez as though the conviction had suddenly dawned upon him. "Did you observe his ears? They are unusually long and the outer margins are pointed—the Darwinian tubercle, Manfred. And did you remark, my dear friend, that the root of the helix divides the concha into two distinct cavities and that the lobule was adherent? A truly criminal ear. The man has committed murder. It is impossible to possess such an ear and not to murder."
The flat to which she admitted them was small and wretchedly furnished. Glancing round the tiny dining-room, Manfred noted the essential appointments which accompany a "furnished" flat.
The girl, who had disappeared into her room to take off her coat, now returned, and sat by the table at which, at her invitation, they had seated themselves.
"I realise that I am being indiscreet," she said with the faintest of smiles; "but I feel that you really want to help me, and I have the curious sense that you can! The police have not been unkind or unfair to me and poor Jeff. On the contrary, they have been most helpful. I fancy that they suspected Mr. Stedland of being a blackmailer, and they were hoping that we could supply some evidence. When that evidence failed, there was nothing for them to do but to press forward the charge. Now, what can I tell you?"
"The story which was not told in court," replied Manfred.
She was silent for a time. "I will tell you," she said at last. "Only my husband's lawyer knows, and I have an idea that he was sceptical as to the truth of what I am now telling you. And if he is sceptical," she said in despair, "how can I expect to convince you?"
The eager eyes of Gonsalez were fixed on hers, and it was he who answered.
"We are already convinced, Mrs. Storr," and Manfred nodded.
Again there was a pause. She was evidently reluctant to begin a narrative which, Manfred guessed, might not be creditable to her; and this proved to be the case.
"When I was a girl," she began simply, "I was at school in Sussex—a big girls' school; I think there were over two hundred pupils. I am not going to excuse anything I did," she went on quickly. "I fell in love with a boy—well, he was a butcher's boy! That sounds dreadful, doesn't it? But you understand I was a child, a very impressionable child—oh, it sounds horrible, I know; but I used to meet him in the garden leading out from the prep. room after prayers; he climbed over the wall to those meetings, and we talked and talked, sometimes for an hour. There was no more in it than a boy and girl love affair, and I can't explain just why I committed such a folly."
"Mantegazza explains the matter very comfortably in his Study of Attraction," murmured Leon Gonsalez. "But forgive me, I interrupted you."
