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！
ng may furnish a pretext to take away a man's life； and to exterminate any family whatsoever。
Two persons of that country who were employed to write the court gazette； having inserted some circumstances relating to a certain fact that was not true； it was pretended that to tell a lie in the court gazette was a disrespect shown to the court； in consequence of which they were put to death。＇14＇ A prince of the blood having inadvertently made some mark on a memorial signed with the red pencil by the emperor； it was determined that he had behaved disrespectfully to the sovereign； which occasioned one of the most terrible persecutions against that family that ever was recorded in history。＇15＇
If the crime of high treason be indeterminate； this alone is sufficient to make the government degenerate into arbitrary power。 I shall descant more largely on this subject when I come to treat＇16＇ of the composition of laws。
8。 Of the Misapplication of the Terms Sacrilege and High Treason。 It is likewise a shocking abuse to give the appellation of high treason to an action that does not deserve it。 By an imperial law＇17＇ it was decreed that those who called in question the prince's judgment； or doubted the merit of such as he had chosen for a public office； should be prosecuted as guilty of sacrilege。＇18＇ Surely it was the cabinet council and the prince's favourites who invented that crime。 By another law； it was determined that whosoever made any attempt to injure the ministers and officers belonging to the sovereign should be deemed guilty of high treason； as if he had attempted to injure the sovereign himself。＇19＇ This law is owing to two princes＇20＇ remarkable for their weakness princes who were led by their ministers as flocks by shepherds； princes who were slaves in the palace； children in the council； strangers to the army； princes； in fine； who preserved their authority only by giving it away every day。 Some of those favourites conspired against their sovereigns。 Nay； they did more； they conspired against the empire they called in barbarous nations； and when the emperors wanted to stop their progress the state was so enfeebled as to be under a necessity of infringing the law； and of exposing itself to the crime of high treason in order to punish those favourites。
And yet this is the very law which the judge of Monsieur de Cinq…Mars built upon＇21＇ when endeavouring to prove that the latter was guilty of the crime of high treason for attempting to remove Cardinal Richelieu from the ministry。 He says： 〃Crimes that aim at the persons of ministers are deemed by the imperial constitutions of equal consequence with those which are levelled against the emperor's own person。 A minister discharges his duty to his prince and to his country： to attempt； therefore； to remove him； is endeavouring to deprive the former one of his arms；＇22＇ and the latter of part of its power。〃 It is impossible for the meanest tools of power to express themselves in more servile language。
By another law of Valentinian； Theodosius； and Arcadius；＇23＇ false coiners are declared guilty of high treason。 But is not this confounding the ideas of things？ Is not the very horror of high treason diminished by giving that name to another crime？
9。 The same Subject continued。 Paulinus having written to the Emperor Alexander that 〃he was preparing to prosecute for high treason a judge who had decided contrary to his edict；〃 the emperor answered； 〃that under his reign there was no such thing as indirect high treason。〃＇24＇
Faustinian wrote to the same emperor that as he had sworn by the prince's life never to pardon his slave； he found himself thereby obliged to perpetuate his wrath； lest he should incur the guilt of l？sa majestas。 Upon which the emperor made answer； 〃Your fears are groundless；＇25＇ and you are a stranger to my principles。〃
It was determined by a senatus…consultum＇26＇ that whosoever melted down any of the emperor's statues which happened to be rejected should not be deemed guilty of high treason。 The Emperors Severus and Antoninus wrote to Pontius＇27＇ that those who sold unconsecrated statues of the emperor should not be charged with high treason。 The same princes wrote to Julius Cassianus that if a person in flinging a stone should by chance strike one of the emperor's statues he should not be liable to a prosecution for high treason。＇28＇ The Julian law requires this sort of limitations； for in virtue of this law the crime of high treason was charged not only upon those who melted down the emperor's statues； but likewise on those who committed any such like action；＇29＇ which made it an arbitrary crime。 When a number of crimes of l？sa majestas had been established； they were obliged to distinguish the several sorts。 Hence Ulpian； the civilian； after saying that the accusation of l？sa majestas did not die with the criminal； adds that this does not relate to all the treasonable acts established by the Julian law；＇30＇ but only to that which implies an attempt against the empire； or against the emperor's life。
10。 The same Subject continued。 There was a law passed in England under Henry VIII； by which whoever predicted the king's death was declared guilty of high treason。 This law was extremely vague； the terror of despotic power is so great that it recoils upon those who exercise it。 In this king's last illness； the physicians would not venture to say he was in danger； and surely they acted very right。＇31＇
11。 Of Thoughts。 Marsyas dreamed that he had cut Dionysius's throat。＇32＇ Dionysius put him to death； pretending that he would never have dreamed of such a thing by night if he had not thought of it by day。 This was a most tyrannical action： for though it had been the subject of his thoughts； yet he had made no attempt＇33＇ towards it。 The laws do not take upon them to punish any other than overt acts。
12。 Of indiscreet Speeches。 Nothing renders the crime of high treason more arbitrary than declaring people guilty of it for indiscreet speeches。 Speech is so subject to interpretation； there is so great a difference between indiscretion and malice； and frequently so little is there of the latter in the freedom of expression； that the law can hardly subject people to a capital punishment for words unless it expressly declares what words they are。＇34＇
Words do not constitute an overt act； they remain only in idea。 When considered by themselves； they have generally no determinate signification； for this depends on the tone in which they are uttered。 It often happens that in repeating the same words they have not the same meaning； this depends on their connection with other things； and sometimes more is signified by silence than by any expression whatever。 Since there can be nothing so equivocal and ambiguous as all this； how is it possible to convert it into a crime of high treason？ Wherever this law is established； there is an end not only of liberty； but even of its very shadow。
In the manifesto of the late Czarina against the family of the D'Olgoruckys；＇35＇ one of these princes is condemned to death for having uttered some indecent words concerning her person： another； for having maliciously interpreted her imperial laws； and for having offended her sacred person by disrespectful expressions。
Not that I pretend to diminish the just indignation of the public against those who presume to stain the glory of their sovereign； what I mean is that； if despotic princes are willing to moderate their power； a milder chastisement would be more proper on those occasions than the charge of high treason a thing always terrible even to innocence itself。＇36＇
Overt acts do not happen every day； they are exposed to the eye of the public； and a false charge with regard to matters of fact may be easily detected。 Words carried into action assume the nature of that action。 Thus a man who goes into a public market…place to incite the subject to revolt incurs the guilt of high treason； because the words are joined to the action； and partake of its nature。 It is not the words that are punished； but an action in which words are employed。 They do not become criminal； but when they are annexed to a criminal action： everything is confounded if words are construed into a capital crime； instead of considering them only as a mark of that crime。
The Emperors Theodosius； Arcadius； and Honorius wrote thus to Rufinus； who was pr？fectus pr？torio： 〃Though a man should happen to speak amiss of our person or government； we do not intend to punish him：＇37＇ if he has spoken through levity； we must despise him； if through folly； we must pity him； and if he wrongs us； we must forgive him。 Therefore； leaving things as they are； you are to inform us accordingly； that we may be able to judge of words by persons； and that we may duly consider whether we ought to punish or overlook them。〃
13。 Of Writings。 In writings there is something more permanent than in words； but when they are in no way preparative to high treason they cannot amount to that charge。
And yet Augustus and Tiberius subjected satirical writers to the same punishment as for having violated the law of maiestas。 Augustus；＇38＇ because of some libels that had been written against persons of the first quality； Tib