the spirit of laws-第142部分

快捷操作: 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! 如果本书没有阅读完，想下次继续接着阅读，可使用上方 "收藏到我的浏览器" 功能 和 "加入书签" 功能！

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