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！
ent by the name of customs were the laws of the barbarous nations； and what had the appellation of law were the Roman institutes。 This cannot possibly be。 King Pepin ordained＇65＇ that wherever there should happen to be no law； custom should be complied with； but that it should never be preferred to the law。 Now； to pretend that the Roman law was preferred to the codes of the laws of the Barbarians is subverting all memorials of antiquity； and especially those codes of Barbarian laws； which constantly affirm the contrary。
So far were the laws of the barbarous nations from being those customs； that it was these very laws； as personal institutions； which introduced them。 The Salic law； for instance； was a personal law； but generally； or almost generally； in places inhabited by the Salian Franks； this Salic law； how personal soever； became； in respect to those Salian Franks； a territorial institution； and was personal only in regard to those Franks who lived elsewhere。 Now if several Burgundians； Alemans； or even Romans should happen to have frequent disputes； in a place where the Salic law was territorial； they must have been determined by the laws of those people； and a great number of decisions agreeable to some of those laws must have introduced new customs into the country。 This explains the constitution of Pepin。 It was natural that those customs should affect even the Franks who lived on the spot； in cases not decided by the Salic law； but it was not natural that they should prevail over the Salic law itself。
Thus there were in each place an established law and received customs which served as a supplement to that law when they did not contradict it。
They might even happen to supply a law that was in no way territorial； and to continue the same example； if a Burgundian was judged by the law of his own nation； in a place where the Salic law was territorial； and the case happened not to be explicitly mentioned in the very text of this law； there is no manner of doubt but that judgment would have been passed upon him according to the custom of the place。
In the reign of King Pepin； the customs then established had not the same force as the laws； but it was not long before the laws gave way to the customs。 And as new regulations are generally remedies that imply a present evil； it may well be imagined that as early as Pepin's time； they began to prefer the customs to the established laws。
What has been said sufficiently explains the manner in which the Roman law began so very early to become territorial； as may be seen in the edict of Pistes； and how the Gothic law continued still in force； as appears by the synod of Troyes above…mentioned。＇66＇ The Roman had become the general personal law； and the Gothic the particular personal law； consequently the Roman law was territorial。 But how came it； some will ask； that the personal laws of the Barbarians fell everywhere into disuse； while the Roman law was continued as a territorial institution in the Visigoth and Burgundian provinces？ I answer that even the Roman law had very nearly the same fate as the other personal institutions； otherwise we would still have the Theodosian code in those provinces where the Roman law was territorial； whereas we have the institutes of Justinian。 Those provinces retained scarcely anything more than the name of the country under the Roman； or written law； than the natural affection which people have for their own institutions； especially when they consider them as privileges； and a few regulations of the Roman law which were not yet forgotten。 This was； however； sufficient to produce such an effect that； when Justinian's compilation appeared； it was received in the provinces of the Gothic and Burgundian demesne as a written law； whereas it was admitted only as written reason in the ancient demesne of the Franks。
13。 Difference between the Salic law； or that of the Salian Franks； and that of the Ripuarian Franks and other barbarous Nations。 The Salic law did not allow of the custom of negative proofs； that is； if a person brought a demand or charge against another； he was obliged by the Salic law to prove it； and it was not sufficient for the second to deny it； which is agreeable to the laws of almost all nations。
The law of the Ripuarian Franks had quite a different spirit；＇67＇ it was contented with negative proofs； and the person） against whom a demand or accusation was brought； might clear himself； in most cases； by swearing； in conjunction with a certain number of witnesses； that he had not committed the crime laid to his charge。 The number of witnesses who were obliged to swear＇68＇ increased in proportion to the importance of the affair； sometimes it amounted to seventy…two。＇69＇ The laws of the Alemans； Bavarians； Thuringians； Frisians； Saxons； Lombards； and Burgundians were formed on the same plan as those of the Ripuarian。
I observed that the Salic law did not allow of negative proofs。 There was one case； however； in which they were allowed：＇70＇ but even then they were not admitted alone； and without the concurrence of positive proofs。 The plaintiff caused witnesses to be heard；＇71＇ in order to ground his action； the defendant produced also witnesses on his side； and the judge was to come at the truth by comparing those testimonies。＇72＇ This practice was vastly different from that of the Ripuarian； and other barbarous laws； where it was customary for the party accused to clear himself by swearing he was not guilty； and by making his relatives also swear that he had told the truth。 These laws could be suitable only to a people remarkable for their natural simplicity and candour； we shall see presently that the legislators were obliged to take proper methods to prevent their being abused。
14。 Another Difference。 The Salic law did not admit of the trial by combat； though it had been received by the laws of the Ripuarians＇73＇ and of almost all the barbarous nations。＇74＇ To me it seems that the law of combat was a natural consequence and a remedy of the law which established negative proofs。 When an action was brought； and it appeared that the defendant was going to elude it by an oath； what other remedy was left to a military man；＇75＇ who saw himself upon the point of being confounded； than to demand satisfaction for the injury done to him： and even for the attempt of perjury？ The Salic law； which did not allow the custom of negative proofs； neither admitted nor had any need of the trial by combat； but the laws of the Ripuarians＇76＇ and of the other barbarous nations＇77＇ who had adopted the practice of negative proofs； were obliged to establish the trial by combat。
Whoever will please to examine the two famous regulations of Gundebald； King of Burgundy； concerning this subject will find they are derived from the very nature of the thing。＇78＇ It was necessary； according to the language of the Barbarian laws； to rescue the oath out of the hands of a person who was going to abuse it。
Among the Lombards； the law of Rotharis admits of cases in which a man who had made his defence by oath should not be suffered to undergo the hardship of a duel。 This custom spread itself further：＇79＇ we shall presently see the mischiefs that