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！
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 nonmanifest thief； he was only condemned to a fine of double the value of what he had stolen。
When the Porcian laws abolished the custom of whipping the citizens with rods； and of reducing them to slavery； the manifest thief was condemned to a payment of fourfold； and they still continued to condemn the non…manifest thief to a payment of double。＇20＇
It seems very odd that these laws should make such a difference in the quality of those two crimes； and in the punishments they inflicted。 And； indeed； whether the thief was detected either before or after he had carried the stolen goods to the place intended； this was a circumstance which did not alter the nature of the crime。 I do not at all question that the whole theory of the Roman laws in relation to theft was borrowed from the Laced？monian institutions。 Lycurgus； with a view of rendering the citizens dextrous and cunning； ordained that children should be practised in thieving； and that those who were caught in the act should be severely whipped。 This occasioned among the Greeks； and afterwards among the Romans； a great difference between a manifest and a non…manifest theft。＇21＇
Among the Romans； a slave who had been guilty of stealing was thrown from the Tarpeian rock。 Here the Laced？monian institutions were out of the question； the laws of Lycurgus in relation to theft were not made for slaves； to deviate from them in this respect was in reality conforming to them。
At Rome； when a person of unripe age happened to be caught in the act； the pr？tor ordered him to be whipped with rods according to his pleasure； as was practised at Sparta。 All this had a more remote origin。 The Laced？monians had derived these usages from the Cretans； and Plato；＇22＇ who wants to prove that the Cretan institutions were designed for war； cites the following； namely； the power of bearing pain in individual combats； and in thefts which have to be concealed。
As the civil laws depend on the political institutions； because they are made for the same society； whenever there is a design of adopting the civil law of another nation； it would be proper to examine beforehand whether they have both the same institutions and the same political law。
Thus when the Cretan laws on theft were adopted by the Laced？monians； as their constitution and government were adopted at the same time； these laws were equally reasonable in both nations。 But when they were carried from Laced？mon to Rome； as they did not find there the same constitution； they were always thought strange； and had no manner of connection with the other civil laws of the Romans。
14。 That we must not separate the Laws from the Circumstances in which they were made。 It was decreed by a law at Athens that when the city was besieged； all the useless people should be put to death。＇23＇ This was an abominable political law； in consequence of an abominable law of nations。 Among the Greeks； the inhabitants of a town taken lost their civil liberty and were sold as slaves。 The taking of a town implied its entire destruction； whi