按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
t； this appears even from the abuse made of it。 Did not Philip assume the power of demolishing towns； under the pretence of their having infringed the laws of the Greeks？ Amphictyon might have inflicted other punishments； he might have ordained； for example； that a certain number of the magistrates of the destroying town； or of the chiefs of the infringing army； should be punished with death； that the destroying nation should cease for a while to enjoy the privileges of the Greeks； that they should pay a fine till the town was rebuilt。 The law ought； above all things； to aim at the reparation of damages。
6。 The Laws which appear the same have not always the same Effect。 C？sar made a law to prohibit people from keeping above sixty sesterces in their houses。＇5＇ This law was considered at Rome as extremely proper for reconciling the debtors to their creditors； because； by obliging the rich to lend to the poor； they enabled the latter to pay their debts。 A law of the same nature made in France at the time of the System proved extremely fatal； because it was enacted under a most frightful situation。 After depriving people of all possible means of laying out their money； they stripped them even of the last resource of keeping it at home； which was the same as taking it from them by open violence。 C？sar's law was intended to make the money circulate； the French minister's design was to draw all the money into one hand。 The former gave either lands or mortgages on private people for the money； the latter proposed in lieu of money nothing but effects which were of no value； and could have none by their very nature； because the law compelled people to accept of them。
7。 The same Subject continued。 Necessity of composing Laws in a proper Manner。 The law of ostracism was established at Athens； at Argos；＇6＇ and at Syracuse。 At Syracuse it was productive of a thousand mischiefs； because it was imprudently enacted。 The principal citizens banished one another by holding the leaf of a fig…tree in their hands； so that those who had any kind of merit withdrew from public affairs。＇7＇ At Athens； where the legislator was sensible of the proper extent and limits of his law； ostracism proved an admirable regulation。 They never condemned more than one person at a time； and such a number of suffrages were requisite for passing this sentence that it was extremely difficult for them to banish aperson whose absence was not necessary to the state。＇8＇
The power of banishing was exercised only every fifth year： and indeed； as the ostracism was designed against none but great personages who threatened the state with danger； it ought not to have been the transaction of every day。
8。 That Laws which appear the same were not always made through the same Motive。 In France they have received most of the Roman laws on substitutions； but through quite a different motive from the Romans。 Among the latter the inheritance was accompanied with certain sacrifices＇9＇ which were to be performed by the inheritor and were regulated by the pontifical law； hence it was that they reckoned it a dishonour to die without heirs； that they made slaves their heirs； and that they devised substitutions。 Of this we have a very strong proof in the vulgar substitution； which was the first invented； and took place only when the heir appointed did not accept of the inheritance。 Its view was not to perpetuate the estate in a family of the same name； but to find somebody that would accept of it。
9。 That the Greek and Roman Laws punished Suicide； but not through the same Motive。 A man； says Plato； who has killed one nearly related to him； that is； himself； not by an order of the magistrate； not to avoid ignominy； but through pusillanimity shall be punished。＇10＇ The Roman law punished this action when it was not committed through pusillanimity； through weariness of life； through impatience in pain； but from a criminal despair。 The Roman law acquitted where the Greek condemned； and condemned where the other acquitted。
Plato's law was formed upon the Laced？monian institutions； where the orders of the magistrate were absolute； where shame was the greatest of miseries； and pusillanimity the greatest of crimes。 The Romans had no longer those refined ideas； theirs was only a fiscal law。
During the time of the republic； there was no law at Rome against suicides； this action is always considered by their historians in a favourable light； and we never meet with any punishment inflicted upon those who committed it。
Under the first emperors； the great families of Rome were continually destroyed by criminal prosecutions。 The custom was then introduced of preventing judgment by a voluntary death。 In this they found a great advantage： they had an honourable interment； and their wills were executed； because there was no law against suicides。＇11＇ But when the emperors became as avaricious as cruel； they deprived those who destroyed themselves of the means of preserving their estates by rendering it criminal for a person to make away with himself through a criminal remorse。
What I have been saying of the motive of the emperors is so true； that they consented that the estates of suicides should not be confiscated when the crime for which they killed themselves was not punished with confiscation。＇12＇
10。 That Laws which seem contrary proceed sometimes from the same Spirit。 In our time we give summons to people in their own houses； but this was not permitted among the Romans。＇13＇
A summons was a violent action；＇14＇ and a kind of warrant for seizing the body；＇15＇ hence it was no more allowed to summon a person in his own house than it is now allowed to arrest a person in his own house for debt。
Both the Roman and our laws admit of this principle alike； that every man ought to have his own house for an asylum； where he should suffer no violence。＇16＇
11。 How to compare two different Systems of Laws。 In France the punishment for false witnesses is capital； in England it is not。 Now； to be able to judge which of these two laws is the best； we must add that in France the rack is used for criminals； but not in England； that in France the accused is not allowed to produce his witnesses； and that they very seldom admit of what are called justifying circumstances in favour of the prisoner； in England they allow of witnesses on both sides。 These three French laws form a close and well…connected system；
and so do the three English laws。 The law of England； which does not allow of the racking of criminals； has but very little hope of drawing from the accused a confession of his crime； for this reason it invites witnesses from all parts； and does not venture to discourage them by the fear of a capital punishment。 The French law； which has one resource more； is not afraid of intimidating the witnesses； on the contrary； reason requires they should be intimidated； it listens only to the witnesses on one side； which are those produced by the attorney…general； and the fate of the accused depends entirely on their testimony。＇17＇ But in England they admit of witnesses on both sides； and the affair is discussed in some measure between them； consequently false witness is there less dangerous； the accused having a remedy against the false witness which he has not in France。 Wherefore； to determine which of those systems is most agreeable to reason； we must take them each as a whole and compare them in their entirety。
12。 That Laws which appear the same are sometimes really different。 The Greek and Roman laws inflicted the same punishment on the receiver as on the thief；＇18＇ the French law does the same。 The former acted rationally； but the latter does not。 Among the Greeks and Romans the thief was condemned to a pecuniary punishment； which ought also to be inflicted on the receiver； for every man that contributes in what shape soever to a damage is obliged to repair it。 But as the punishment of theft is capital with us； the receiver cannot be punished like the thief without carrying things to excess。 A receiver may act innocently on a thousand occasions： the thief is always culpable； one hinders the conviction of a crime； the other commits it； in one the whole is passive； the other is active； the thief must surmount more obstacles； and his soul must be more hardened against the laws。
The civilians have gone further； they look upon the receiver as more odious than the thief；＇19＇ for were it not for the receiver the theft； say they； could not be long concealed。 But this again might be right when there was only a pecuniary punishment； the affair in question was a damage done； and the receiver was generally better able to repair it； but when the punishment became capital； they ought to have been directed by other principles。
13。 That we must not separate Laws from the End for which they were made： of the Roman Laws on Theft。 When a thief was caught in the act； this was called by the Romans a manifest theft； when he was not detected till some time afterwards； it was a non…manifest theft。
The law of the Twelve Tables ordained that a manifest thief should be whipped with rods and condemned to slavery if he had attained the age of puberty； or only whipped if he was not of ripe age； but as for the nonmani