the spirit of laws-第47部分

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！



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；　Tiberius；　because　of　those　which　he　suspected　to　have　been　written　against　himself。　Nothing　was　more　fatal　to　Roman　liberty。　Cremutius　Cordus　was　accused　of　having　called　Cassius　in　his　annals　the　last　of　the　Romans。＇39＇

Satirical　writings　are　hardly　known　in　despotic　governments；　where　dejection　of　mind　on　the　one　hand；　and　ignorance　on　the　other；　afford　neither　abilities　nor　will　to　write。　In　democracies　they　are　not　hindered；　for　the　very　same　reason　which　causes　them　to　be　prohibited　in　monarchies；　being　generally　levelled　against　men　of　power　and　authority；　they　flatter　the　malignancy　of　the　people；　who　are　the　governing　party。　In　monarchies　they　are　forbidden；　but　rather　as　a　subject　of　civil　animadversion　than　as　a　capital　crime。　They　may　amuse　the　general　malevolence；　please　the　malcontents；　diminish　the　envy　against　public　employments；　give　the　people　patience　to　suffer；　and　make　them　laugh　at　their　sufferings。

But　no　government　is　so　averse　to　satirical　writings　as　the　aristocratic。　There　the　magistrates　are　petty　sovereigns；　but　not　great　enough　to　despise　affronts。　If　in　a　monarchy　a　satirical　stroke　is　designed　against　the　prince；　he　is　placed　on　such　an　eminence　that　it　does　not　reach　him；　but　an　aristocratic　lord　is　pierced　to　the　very　heart。　Hence　the　decemvirs；　who　formed　an　aristocracy；　punished　satirical　writings　with　death。＇40＇

14。　Breach　of　Modesty　in　punishing　Crimes。　There　are　rules　of　modesty　observed　by　almost　every　nation　in　the　world；　now　it　would　be　very　absurd　to　infringe　these　rules　in　the　punishment　of　crimes；　the　principal　view　of　which　ought　always　to　be　the　establishment　of　order。

Was　it　the　intent　of　those　Oriental　nations　who　exposed　women　to　elephants　trained　up　for　an　abominable　kind　of　punishment　　was　it；　I　say；　their　intent　to　establish　one　law　by　the　breach　of　another？

By　an　ancient　custom　of　the　Romans　it　was　not　permitted　to　put　girls　to　death　till　they　were　ripe　fo