第8章

ThemodernlanguageshaveonlybeenfittedtometaphysicalinquiriesbyadoptingthisLatindialect，orbyimitatingtheprocesswhichwasoriginallyfollowedinitsformation。ThesourceofthephraseologywhichhasbeenalwaysemployedformetaphysicaldiscussioninmoderntimeswastheLatintranslationsofAristotle，inwhich，whetherderivedornotfromArabicversions，theplanofthetranslatorwasnottoseekforanalogousexpressionsinanypartofLatinliterature，buttoconstructanewfromLatinrootsasetofphrasesequaltotheexpressionofGreekphilosophicalideas。OversuchaprocesstheterminologyofRomanlawcanhaveexercisedlittleinfluence；atmost，afewLatinlawtermsinatransmutedshapehavemadetheirwayintometaphysicallanguage。AtthesametimeitisworthyofremarkthatwhenevertheproblemsofmetaphysicsarethosewhichhavebeenmoststronglyagitatedinWesternEurope，thethought，ifnotthelanguage，betraysalegalparentage。FewthingsinthehistoryofspeculationaremoreimpressivethanthefactthatnoGreek-speakingpeoplehaseverfeltitselfseriouslyperplexedbythegreatquestionofFree-willandNecessity:Idonotpretendtoofferanysummaryexplanationofthis，butitdoesnotseemanirrelevantsuggestionthatneithertheGreeks，noranysocietyspeakingandthinkingintheirlanguage，evershowedthesmallestcapacityforproducingaphilosophyoflaw。LegalscienceisaRomancreation，andtheproblemofFree-willariseswhenwecontemplateametaphysicalconceptionunderalegalaspect。Howcameittobeaquestionwhetherinvariablesequencewasidenticalwithnecessaryconnection？IcanonlysaythatthetendencyofRomanlaw，whichbecamestrongerasitadvanced，wastolookuponlegalconsequencesasunitedtolegalcausesbyaninexorablenecessity，atendencymostmarkedlyexemplifiedinthedefinitionofObligationwhichIhaverepeatedlycited，\"Jurisvinculumquonecessitateadstringimuralicujussolvendaerei。\" ButtheproblemofFree-willwastheologicalbeforeitbecamephilosophical，and，ifitstermshavebeenaffectedbyjurisprudence，itwillbebecauseJurisprudencehadmadeitselffeltinTheology。Thegreatpointofinquirywhichisheresuggestedhasneverbeensatisfactorilyelucidated。Whathastobedetermined，iswhetherjurisprudencehaseverservedasthemediumthroughwhichtheologicalprincipleshavebeenviewed； whether，bysupplyingapeculiarlanguage，apeculiarmodeofreasoning，andapeculiarsolutionofmanyoftheproblemsoflife，ithaseveropenednewchannelsinwhichtheologicalspeculationcouldflowoutandexpanditself。Forthepurposeofgivinganansweritisnecessarytorecollectwhatisalreadyagreeduponbythebestwritersastotheintellectualfoodwhichtheologyfirstassimilated。ItisconcededonallsidesthattheearliestlanguageoftheChristianChurchwasGreek，andthattheproblemstowhichitfirstaddresseditselfwerethoseforwhichGreekphilosophyinitslaterformshadpreparedtheway。GreekmetaphysicalliteraturecontainedthesolestockofwordsandideasoutofwhichthehumanmindcouldprovideitselfwiththemeansofengagingintheprofoundcontroversiesastotheDivinePersons，theDivineSubstance，andtheDivineNatures。TheLatinlanguageandthemeagreLatinphilosophywerequiteunequaltotheundertaking，andaccordinglytheWesternorLatin-speakingprovincesoftheEmpireadoptedtheconclusionsoftheEastwithoutdisputingorreviewingthem。\"LatinChristianity，\"saysDeanMilman，\"acceptedthecreedwhichitsnarrowandbarrenvocabularycouldhardlyexpressinadequateterms。Yet，throughout，theadhesionofRomeandtheWestwasapassiveacquiescenceinthedogmaticsystemwhichhadbeenwroughtoutbytheprofoundertheologyoftheEasterndivines，ratherthanavigorousandoriginalexaminationonherpartofthosemysteries。 TheLatinChurchwasthescholaraswellastheloyalpartizanofAthanasius。\"ButwhentheseparationofEastandWestbecamewider，andtheLatin-speakingWesternEmpirebegantolivewithanintellectuallifeofitsown，itsdeferencetotheEastwasallatonceexchangedfortheagitationofanumberofquestionsentirelyforeigntoEasternspeculation。\"WhileGreektheology(Milman，LatinChristianity，Preface，5)wentondefiningwithstillmoreexquisitesubtletytheGodheadandthenatureofChrist\"——\"whiletheinterminablecontroversystilllengthenedoutandcastforthsectaftersectfromtheenfeebledcommunity\"—— theWesternChurchthrewitselfwithpassionateardourintoaneworderofdisputes，thesamewhichfromthosedaystothishaveneverlosttheirinterestforanyfamilyofmankindatanytimeincludedintheLatincommunion。ThenatureofSinanditstransmissionbyinheritance——thedebtowedbymananditsvicarioussatisfaction——thenecessityandsufficiencyoftheAtonement——abovealltheapparentantagonismbetweenFree-willandtheDivineProvidence——thesewerethepointswhichtheWestbegantodebateasardentlyasevertheEasthaddiscussedthearticlesofitsmorespecialcreed。WhyisitthenthatonthetwosidesofthelinewhichdividestheGreek-speakingfromtheLatin-speakingprovincestherelietwoclassesoftheologicalproblemssostrikinglydifferentfromoneanother？ThehistoriansoftheChurchhavecomecloseuponthesolutionwhentheyremarkthatthenewproblemsweremore\"practical，\"lessabsolutelyspeculative，thanthosewhichhadtornEasternChristianityasunder，butnoneofthem，sofarasIamaware，hasquitereachedit。Iaffirmwithouthesitationthatthedifferencebetweenthetwotheologicalsystemsisaccountedforbythefactthat，inpassingfromtheEasttotheWest，theologicalspeculationhadpassedfromaclimateofGreekmetaphysicstoaclimateofRomanlaw。Forsomecenturiesbeforethesecontroversiesroseintooverwhelmingimportance，alltheintellectualactivityoftheWesternRomanshadbeenexpendedonjurisprudenceexclusively。Theyhadbeenoccupiedinapplyingapeculiarsetofprinciplestoallthecombinationsinwhichthecircumstancesoflifearecapableofbeingarranged。Noforeignpursuitortastecalledofftheirattentionfromthisengrossingoccupation，andforcarryingitontheypossessedavocabularyasaccurateasitwascopious，astrictmethodofreasoning，astockofgeneralpropositionsonconductmoreorlessverifiedbyexperience，andarigidmoralphilosophy。ItwasimpossiblethattheyshouldnotselectfromthequestionsindicatedbytheChristianrecordsthosewhichhadsomeaffinitywiththeorderofspeculationstowhichtheywereaccustomed，andthattheirmannerofdealingwiththemshouldborrowsomethingfromtheirforensichabits。AlmosteverybodywhohasknowledgeenoughofRomanlawtoappreciatetheRomanpenalsystem，theRomantheoryoftheobligationsestablishedbyContractorDelict，theRomanviewofDebtsandofthemodesofincurring，extinguishing，andtransmittingthem，theRomannotionofthecontinuanceofindividualexistencebyUniversalSuccession，maybetrustedtosaywhencearosetheframeofmindtowhichtheproblemsofWesterntheologyprovedsocongenial，whencecamethephraseologyinwhichtheseproblemswerestated，andwhencethedescriptionofreasoningemployedintheirsolution。ItmustonlyberecollectedthatRomanlawwhichhadworkeditselfintoWesternthoughtwasneitherthearchaicsystemoftheancientcity，northeprunedandcurtailedjurisprudenceoftheByzantineEmperors； stillless，ofcourse，wasitthemassofrules，nearlyburiedinaparasiticalovergrowthofmodernspeculativedoctrine，whichpassesbythenameofModernCivilLaw。Ispeakonlyofthatphilosophyofjurisprudence，wroughtoutbythegreatjuridicalthinkersoftheAntonineage，whichmay。stillbepartiallyreproducedfromthePandectsofJustinian，asystemtowhichfewfaultscanbeattributedexceptitperhapsaimedatahigherdegreeofelegance，certainty，andprecision，thanhumanaffairswillpermittothelimitswithinwhichhumanlawsseektoconfinethem。 ItisasingularresultofthatignoranceofRomanlawwhichEnglishmenreadilyconfess，andofwhichtheyaresometimesnotashamedtoboast，thatmanyEnglishwritersofnoteandcredithavebeenledbyittoputforwardthemostuntenableofparadoxesconcerningtheconditionofhumanintellectduringtheRomanEmpire。Ithasbeenconstantlyasserted，Asunhesitatinglyasiftherewerenotemerityinadvancingtheproposition，thatfromthecloseoftheAugustaneratothegeneralawakeningofinterestonthepointsoftheChristianfaith，thementalenergiesofthecivilisedworldweresmittenwithaparalysis。 Nowtherearetwosubjectsofthought——theonlytwoperhapswiththeexceptionofphysicalscience——whichareabletogiveemploymenttoallthePowersandcapacitieswhichthemindpossesses。OneofthemisMetaphysicalinquiry，whichknowsnolimitssolongasthemindissatisfiedtoworkonitself；theotherislaw，whichisasextensiveastheconcernsofmankind。 Ithappensthat，duringtheveryperiodindicated，theGreek-speakingprovincesweredevotedtoone，theLatinSpeakingprovincestotheother，ofthesestudies。IsaynothingofthefruitsofspeculationinAlexandriaandtheEast，butI confidentlyaffirmthatRomeandtheWesthadanoccupationinhandfullycapableofcompensatingthemfortheabsenceofeveryothermentalexercise，andIaddthattheresultsachieved，sofarasweknowthem，werenotunworthyofthecontinuousandexclusivelabourbestowedonproducingthem。NobodyexceptaprofessionallawyerisperhapsinapositioncompletelytounderstandhowmuchoftheintellectualstrengthofindividualsLawiscapableofabsorbing，butalaymanhasnodifficultyincomprehendingwhyitwasthatanunusualshareofthecollectiveintellectofRomewasengrossedbyjurisprudence。\"Theproficiency(2*)ofagivencommunityinjurisprudencedependsinthelongrunonthesameconditionsasitsprogressinanyotherlineofinquiry；andthechiefofthesearetheproportionofthenationalintellectdevotedtoit，andthelengthoftimeduringwhichitissodevoted。Now，acombinationofallthecauses，directandindirect，whichcontributetotheadvancingandperfectingofasciencecontinuedtooperateonthejurisprudenceofRomethroughtheentirespacebetweentheTwelveTablesandtheseveranceofthetwoEmpires，——andthatnotirregularlyoratintervals，butinsteadilyincreasingforceandconstantlyaugmentingnumber。Weshouldreflectthattheearliestintellectualexercisetowhichayoungnationdevotesitselfisthestudyofitslaws。Assoonasthemindmakesitsfirstconsciouseffortstowardsgeneralisation，theconcernsofevery-daylifearethefirsttopressforinclusionwithingeneralrulesandcomprehensiveformulas。Thepopularityofthepursuitonwhichalltheenergiesoftheyoungcommonwealtharebentisattheoutsetunbounded；butitceasesintime。Themonopolyofmindbylawisbrokendown。ThecrowdatthemorningaudienceofthegreatRomanjurisconsultlessens。ThestudentsarecountedbyhundredsinsteadofthousandsintheEnglishInnsofCourt。Art，Literature，Science，andPolitics，claimtheirshareofthenationalintellect；andthepracticeofjurisprudenceisconfinedwithinthecircleofaprofession，neverindeedlimitedorinsignificant，butattractedasmuchbytherewardsasbytheintrinsicrecommendationsoftheirscience。 ThissuccessionofchangesexhibiteditselfevenmorestrikinglyatRomethaninEngland。TothecloseoftheRepublicthelawwasthesolefieldforallabilityexceptthespecialtalentofacapacityforgeneralship。ButanewstageofintellectualprogressbeganwiththeAugustanage，asitdidwithourownElizabethanera。Weallknowwhatwereitsachievementsinpoetryandprose；buttherearesomeindications，itshouldberemarked，that，besidesitsefflorescenceinornamentalliterature，itwasontheeveofthrowingoutnewaptitudeforconquestinphysicalscience。Here，however，isthepointatwhichthehistoryofmindintheRomanStateceasestobeparalleltotherouteswhichmentalprogresshadsincethenpursued。ThebriefspanofRomanliterature，strictlysocalled，wassuddenlyclosedunderavarietyofinfluences，whichthoughtheymaypartiallybetraceditwouldbeimproperinthisplacetoanalyse。Ancientintellectwasforciblythrustbackintoitsoldcourses，andlawagainbecamenolessexclusivelytheproperspherefortalentthanithadbeeninthedayswhentheRomansdespisedphilosophyandpoetryasthetoysofachildishrace。Ofwhatnatureweretheexternalinducementswhich，duringtheImperialperiod，tendedtodrawamanofinherentcapacitytothepursuitsofthejurisconsultmaybestbeunderstoodbyconsideringtheoptionwhichwaspracticallybeforehiminhischoiceofaprofession。 Hemightbecomeateacherofrhetoric，acommanderoffrontier-posts，oraprofessionalwriterofpanegyrics。Theonlyotherwalkofactivelifewhichwasopentohimwasthepracticeofthelaw。Throughthatlaytheapproachtowealth，tofame，tooffice，tothecouncil-chamberofthemonarch——itmaybetotheverythroneitself。\" ThepremiumonthestudyofjurisprudencewassoenormousthattherewereschoolsoflawineverypartoftheEmpire，evenintheverydomainofMetaphysics。But，thoughthetransferoftheseatofempiretoByzantiumgaveaperceptibleimpetustoitscultivationintheEast，jurisprudenceneverdethronedthepursuitswhichtherecompetedwithit。ItslanguagewasLatin，anexoticdialectintheEasternhalfoftheEmpire。ItisonlyoftheWestthatwecanlaydownthatlawwasnotonlythementalfoodoftheambitiousandaspiring，butthesolealimentofallintellectualactivity。GreekphilosophyhadneverbeenmorethanatransientfashionabletastewiththeeducatedclassofRomeitself，andwhenthenewEasterncapitalhadbeencreated，andtheEmpiresubsequentlydividedintotwo，thedivorceoftheWesternprovincesfromGreekspeculation，andtheirexclusivedevotiontojurisprudence，becamemoredecidedthanever。AssoonthenastheyceasedtositatthefeetoftheGreeksandbegantoponderoutatheologyoftheirown，thetheologyprovedtobepermeatedwithforensicideasandcouchedinaforensicphraseology。ItiscertainthatthissubstratumoflawinWesterntheologyliesexceedinglydeep。AnewsetofGreektheories，theAristotelianphilosophy，madetheirwayafterwardsintotheWestandalmostentirelyburieditsindigenousdoctrines。ButwhenattheReformationitpartiallyshookitselffreefromtheirinfluence，itinstantlysuppliedtheirplacewithLaw。ItisdifficulttosaywhetherthereligioussystemofCalvinorthereligioussystemoftheArminianshasthemoremarkedlylegalcharacter。 ThevastinfluenceofthespecificjurisprudenceofContractproducedbytheRomansuponthecorrespondingdepartmentofmodernLawbelongsrathertothehistoryofmaturejurisprudencethantoatreatiselikethepresent。ItdidnotmakeitselffelttilltheschoolofBolognafoundedthelegalscienceofmodernEurope。ButthefactthattheRomans，beforetheirEmpirefell，hadsofullydevelopedtheconceptionofContractbecomesofimportanceatamuchearlierperiodthanthis。Feudalism，Ihaverepeatedlyasserted，wasacompoundofarchaicbarbarianusagewithRomanlaw；nootherexplanationofitistenable，orevenintelligible。Theearliestsocialformsofthefeudalperioddifferinlittlefromtheordinaryassociationsinwhichthemenofprimitivecivilisationsareeverywhereseenunited。AFiefwasanorganicallycompletebrotherhoodofassociateswhoseproprietaryandpersonalrightswereinextricablyblendedtogether。IthadmuchincommonwithanIndianVillageCommunityandmuchincommonwithaHighlandclan。Butstillitpresentssomephenomenawhichweneverfindintheassociationswhicharespontaneouslyformedbybeginnersincivilisation。Truearchaiccommunitiesareheldtogethernotbyexpressrules，butbysentiment，or，weshouldperhapssay，byinstinct；andnewcomersintothebrotherhoodarebroughtwithintherangeofthisinstinctbyfalselypretendingtoshareinthebloodrelationshipfromwhichitnaturallysprings。Buttheearliestfeudalcommunitieswereneitherboundtogetherbymeresentimentnorrecruitedbyafiction。ThetiewhichunitedthemwasContract，andtheyobtainednewassociatesbycontractingwiththem。Therelationofthelordtothevassalshadoriginallybeensettledbyexpressengagement，andapersonwishingtoengrafthimselfonthebrotherhoodbycommendationorinfeudationcametoadistinctunderstandingastotheconditionsonwhichhewastobeadmitted。ItisthereforethesphereoccupiedinthembyContractwhichprincipallydistinguishesthefeudalinstitutionsfromtheunadulteratedusagesofprimitiveraces。Thelordhadmanyofthecharacteristicsofapatriarchalchieftain，buthisprerogativewaslimitedbyavarietyofsettledcustomstraceabletotheexpressconditionswhichhadbeenagreeduponwhentheinfeudationtookplace。Henceflowthechiefdifferenceswhichforbidustoclassthefeudalsocietieswithtruearchaiccommunities。Theyweremuchmoredurableandmuchmorevarious； moredurable，becauseexpressrulesartlessdestructiblethaninstinctivehabits，andmorevarious，becausethecontractsonwhichtheywerefoundedwereadjustedtotheminutestcircumstancesandwishesofthepersonswhosurrenderedorgrantedawaytheirlands。Thislastconsiderationmayservetoindicatehowgreatlythevulgaropinionscurrentamongusastotheoriginofmodernsocietystandinneedofrevision。ItisoftensaidthattheirregularandvariouscontourofmoderncivilisationisduetotheexuberantanderraticgeniusoftheGermanicraces，anditisoftencontrastedwiththedullroutineoftheRomanEmpire。ThetruthisthattheEmpirebequeathedtomodernsocietythelegalconceptiontowhichallthisirregularityisattributable；ifthecustomsandinstitutionsofbarbarianshaveonecharacteristicmorestrikingthananother，itistheirextremeuniformity。 NOTES: 1。ThepassagequotedistranscribedwithslightalterationsfromapapercontributedbytheauthortotheCambridgeEssaysfor1856。 2。CambridgeEssays，1856。AncientLaw byHenryMaineChapter10TheEarlyHistoryofDelictandCrime TheTeutonicCodes，includingthoseofourAnglo-Saxon ancestors，aretheonlybodiesofarchaicsecularlawwhichhave comedowntousinsuchastatethatwecanformanexactnotion oftheiroriginaldimensions。Althoughtheextantfragmentsof RomanandHelleniccodessufficetoprovetoustheirgeneral character，theredoesnotremainenoughofthemforustobe quitesureoftheirprecisemagnitudeoroftheproportionof theirpartstoeachother。Butstillonthewholealltheknown collectionsofancientlawarecharacterisedbyafeaturewhich broadlydistinguishesthemfromsystemsofmaturejurisprudence。 Theproportionofcriminaltocivillawisexceedinglydifferent。 IntheGermancodes，thecivilpartofthelawhastrifling dimensionsascomparedwiththecriminal。Thetraditionswhich speakofthesanguinarypenaltiesinflictedbythecodeofDraco seemtoindicatethatithadthesamecharacteristic。Inthe TwelveTablesalone，producedbyasocietyofgreaterlegal geniusandatfirstofgentlermanners，thecivillawhas somethinglikeitsmodernprecedence；buttherelativeamountof spacegiventothemodesofredressingwrong，thoughnot enormous，appearstohavebeenlarge。Itmaybelaiddown，I think，thatthemorearchaicthecode，thefullerandtheminuter isitspenallegislation。Thephenomenonhasoftenbeenobserved， andhasbeenexplained，nodoubttoagreatextentcorrectly，by theViolencehabitualtothecommunitieswhichforthefirsttime reducedtheirlawstowriting。Thelegislator，itissaid， proportionedthedivisionsofhisworktothefrequencyofa certainclassofincidentsinbarbarianlife。Iimagine，however， thatthisaccountisnotquitecomplete。Itshouldberecollected thatthecomparativebarrennessofcivillawinarchaic collectionsisconsistentwiththoseothercharacteristicsof ancientjurisprudencewhichhavebeendiscussedinthistreatise。 Nine-tenthsofthecivilpartofthelawpractisedbycivilised societiesaremadeupoftheLawofPersons，oftheLawof Propertyandofinheritance，andoftheLawofContract。Butit isplainthatalltheseprovincesofjurisprudencemustshrink withinnarrowerboundaries，thenearerwemakeourapproachesto theinfancyofsocialbrotherhood。TheLawofPersons，whichis nothingelsethantheLawofStatus，willberestrictedtothe scantiestlimitsaslongasallformsofStatusaremergedin commonsubjectiontoPaternalPower，aslongastheWifehasno rightsagainstherHusband，theSonnoneagainsthisFather；and theinfantWardnoneagainsttheAgnateswhoarehisGuardians。 Similarly，therulesrelatingtoPropertyandSuccessioncan neverbeplentiful，solongaslandandgoodsdevolvewithinthe family，and，ifdistributedatall，aredistributedinsideits circle。Butthegreatestgapinancientcivillawwillalwaysbe causedbytheabsenceofContract，whichsomearchaiccodesdo notmentionatall，whileotherssignificantlyattestthe immaturityofthemoralnotionsonwhichContractdependsby supplyingitsplacewithanelaboratejurisprudenceofOaths。 Therearenocorrespondingreasonsforthepovertyofpenallaw， andaccordingly，evenifitbehazardoustopronouncethatthe childhoodofnationsisalwaysaperiodofungovernedviolence， weshallstillbeabletounderstandwhythemodemrelationof criminallawtocivilshouldbeinvertedinancient。codes。 Ihavespokenofprimitivejurisprudenceasgivingto criminallawapriorityunknowninalaterage。Theexpression hasbeenusedforconvenience’sake，butinfacttheinspection ofancientcodesshowsthatthelawwhichtheyexhibitinunusual quantitiesisnottruecriminallaw。Allcivilisedsystemsagree indrawingadistinctionbetweenoffencesagainsttheStateor CommunityandoffencesagainsttheIndividual，andthetwo classesofinjuries，thuskeptapart，Imayhere，without pretendingthatthetermshavealwaysbeenemployedconsistently injurisprudence，callCrimesandWrongs，criminaanddelicta。 Nowthepenallawofancientcommunitiesisnotthelawof Crimes；itisthelawofWrongs，or，tousetheEnglishtechnical word，ofTorts。Thepersoninjuredproceedsagainstthe wrong-doerbyanordinarycivilaction，andrecoverscompensation intheshapeofmoney-damagesifhesucceeds。IftheCommentaries ofGaiusbeopenedattheplacewherethewritertreatsofthe penaljurisprudencefoundedontheTwelveTables，itwillbeseen thatattheheadofthecivilwrongsrecognisedbytheRomanlaw stoodFurtumorTheft。Offenceswhichweareaccustomedtoregard exclusivelyascrimesareexclusivelytreatedastorts，andnot theftonly，butassaultandviolentrobbery，areassociatedby thejurisconsultwithtrespass，libelandslander。Allalikegave risetoanObligationorvinculumjuris，andwereallrequitedby apaymentofmoney。Thispeculiarity，however，ismoststrongly broughtoutintheconsolidatedLawsoftheGermanictribes。 Withoutanexception，theydescribeanimmensesystemofmoney compensationsforhomicide，andwithfewexceptions，aslargea schemeofcompensationsforminorinjuries。\"UnderAnglo-Saxon law，\"writesMr。Kemble(Anglo-Saxons，i。177)，\"asumwasplaced onthelifeofeveryfreeman，accordingtohisrank，anda correspondingsumoneverywoundthatcouldbeinflictedonhis person，fornearlyeveryinjurythatcouldbedonetohiscivil rights，honourorpeace；thesumbeingaggravatedaccordingto adventitiouscircumstances。\"Thesecompositionsareevidently regardedasavaluablesourceofincome；highlycomplexrules regulatethetitletothemandtheresponsibilityforthem；and， asIhavealreadyhadoccasiontostate，theyoftenfollowavery peculiarlineofdevolution，iftheyhavenotbeenacquittedat thedeceaseofthepersontowhomtheybelong。Ifthereforethe criterionofadelict，wrong，ortortbethatthepersonwho suffersit，andnottheState，isconceivedtobewronged，itmay beassertedthatintheinfancyofjurisprudencethecitizen dependsforprotectionagainstviolenceorfraudnotontheLaw ofCrimebutontheLawofTort。 Tortsthenarecopiouslyenlargeduponinprimitive jurisprudence。ItmustbeaddedthatSinsareknowntoitalso。 OftheTeutoniccodesitisalmostunnecessarytomakethis assertion，becausethosecodes，intheforminwhichwehave receivedthem，werecompiledorrecastbyChristianlegislators。 Butitisalsotruethatnon-Christianbodiesofarchaiclaw entailpenalconsequencesoncertainclassesofactsandon certainclassesofomissions，asbeingviolationsofdivine prescriptionsandcommands。ThelawadministeredatAthensbythe SenateofAreopaguswasprobablyaspecialreligiouscode，andat Rome，apparentlyfromaveryearlyperiod，thePontifical jurisprudencepunishedadultery，sacrilegeandperhapsmurder。 TherewerethereforeintheAthenianandintheRomanStateslaws punishingsins。Therewerealsolawspunishingtorts。The conceptionofoffenceagainstGodproducedthefirstclassof ordinances；theconceptionofoffenceagainstone’sneighbour producedthesecond；buttheideaofoffenceagainsttheStateor aggregatecommunitydidnotatfirstproduceatruecriminal jurisprudence。 Yetitisnottobesupposedthataconceptionsosimpleand elementaryasthatofwrongdonetotheStatewaswantinginany primitivesociety。Itseemsratherthattheverydistinctness withwhichthisconceptionisrealisedisthetruecausewhichat firstpreventsthegrowthofacriminallawAtallevents，when theRomancommunityconceiveditselftobeinjured，theanalogy ofapersonalwrongreceivedwascarriedouttoitsconsequences withabsoluteliteralness，andtheStateavengeditselfbya singleactontheindividualwrong-doer。Theresultwasthat，in theinfancyofthecommonwealth，everyoffencevitallytouching itssecurityoritsinterestswaspunishedbyaseparate enactmentofthelegislature。Andthisistheearliestconception ofacrimenorCrime——anactinvolvingsuchhighissuesthat theState，insteadofleavingitscognisancetothecivil tribunalorthereligiouscourt，directedaspeciallawor privilegiumagainsttheperpetrator。Everyindictmenttherefore tooktheformofabillofpainsandpenalties，andthetrialof acriminalwasaproceedingwhollyextraordinary，wholly irregular，whollyindependentofsettledrulesandfixed conditions。Consequently，bothforthereasonthatthetribunal dispensingjusticewasthesovereignstateitselfandalsofor thereasonthatnoclassificationoftheactsprescribedor forbiddenwaspossible，therewasnotatthisepochanyLawof crimes，anycriminaljurisprudence。Theprocedurewasidentical withtheformsofpassinganordinarystatute；itwassetin motionbythesamepersonsandconductedwithpreciselythesame solemnities。Anditistobeobservedthat，whenaregular criminallawwithanapparatusofCourtsandofficersforits administrationhadafterwardscomeintobeing，theoldprocedure， asmightbesupposedfromitsconformitywiththeory，stillin strictnessremainedpracticable；and，muchasresorttosuchan expedientwasdiscredited，thepeopleofRomealwaysretainedthe powerofpunishingbyaspeciallawoffencesagainstitsmajesty。 Theclassicalscholardoesnotrequiretoberemindedthatin exactlythesamemannertheAthenianBillofPainsandPenalties， or，survivedtheestablishmentofregulartribunals。Itisknown toothatwhenthefreemenoftheTeutonicracesassembledfor legislation，theyalsoclaimedauthoritytopunishoffencesof peculiarblacknessorperpetratedbycriminalsofexalted station。Ofthisnaturewasthecriminaljurisdictionofthe Anglo-SaxonWitenagemot。 ItmaybethoughtthatthedifferencewhichIhaveasserted toexistbetweentheancientandmodernviewofpenallawhas onlyaverbalexistence。Thecommunityitmaybesaid，besides interposingtopunishcrimeslegislatively，hasfromtheearliest timesinterferedbyitstribunalstocompelthewrongdoerto compoundforhiswrong，and，ifitdoesthis，itmustalwayshave supposedthatinsomewayitwasinjuredthroughhisoffence。 But，howeverrigorousthisinferencemayseemtousnow-a-days， itisverydoubtfulwhetheritwasactuallydrawnbythemenof primitiveantiquity。Howlittlethenotionofinjurytothe communityhadtodowiththeearliestinterferencesoftheState throughitstribunals，isshownbythecuriouscircumstancesthat intheoriginaladministrationofjustice，theproceedingswerea closeimitationoftheseriesofactswhichwerelikelytobe gonethroughinprivatelifebypersonswhoweredisputing，but whoafterwardssufferedtheirquarreltobeappeased。The magistratecarefullysimulatedthedemeanourofaprivate arbitratorcasuallycalledin。 Inordertoshowthatthisstatementisnotamerefanciful conceit，Iwillproducetheevidenceonwhichitrests。Veryfar themostancientjudicialproceedingknowntousistheLegis ActioSacramentioftheRomans，outofwhichallthelaterRoman LawofActionsmaybeprovedtohavegrown。Gaiuscarefully describesitsceremonial。Unmeaningandgrotesqueasitappears atfirstsight，alittleattentionenablesustodecipherand interpretit。 Thesubjectoflitigationissupposedtobe。inCourt。Ifit ismoveable，itisactuallythere。Ifitbeimmoveable，a fragmentorsampleofitisbroughtinitsplace；land，for instance，isrepresentedbyaclod，ahousebyasinglebrick。In theexampleselectedbyGaius，thesuitisforaslave。The proceedingbeginsbytheplaintiff’sadvancingwitharod，which， asGaiusexpresslytells，symbolisedaspear。Helaysholdofthe slaveandassertsarighttohimwiththewords，\"Huncego hominemexJureQuiritiummeumessedicosecundumsuamcausam sicutdixi。\"andthensaying，\"EccetibiVindictamimposui，\"he toucheshimwiththespear。Thedefendantgoesthroughthesame seriesofactsandgestures。OnthisthePraetorintervenes，and bidsthelitigantsrelaxtheirhold，\"Mittiteambohominem。\"They obey，andtheplaintiffdemandsfromthedefendantthereasonof hisinterference，\"Postuloannedicasquaexcausavindicaveris。\" aquestionwhichisrepliedtobyafreshassertionofright， \"Jusperegisicutvindictamimposui。\"Onthis，thefirstclaimant offerstostakeasumofmoney，calledaSacramentum，onthe justiceofhisowncase，\"Quandotuinjuriaprovocasti，Daeris Sacramentoteprovoco，\"andthedefendant，inthephrase \"Similiteregote，\"acceptsthewager。Thesubsequentproceedings werenolongerofaformalkind，butitistobeobservedthat thePraetortooksecurityfortheSacramentum，whichalwayswent intothecoffersoftheState。 SuchwasthenecessaryprefaceofeveryancientRomansuit。 Itisimpossible，Ithink，torefuseassenttothesuggestionof thosewhoseeinitadramatisationoftheOriginofJustice。Two armedmenarewranglingaboutsomedisputedpropertyThePraetor， virpietategravis，happenstobegoingby，andinterposesto stopthecontest。Thedisputantsstatetheircasetohim，and agreethatheshallarbitratebetweenthem，itbeingarranged thattheloser，besidesresigningthesubjectofthequarrel， shallpayasumofmoneytotheumpireasremunerationforhis troubleandlossoftime。Thisinterpretationwouldbeless plausiblethanitis，wereitnotthat，byasurprising coincidence，theceremonydescribedbyGaiusastheimperative courseofproceedinginaLegisActioissubstantiallythesame withoneofthetwosubjectswhichtheGodHephaestusis describedbyHomerasmouldingintotheFirstCompartmentofthe ShieldofAchilles。IntheHomerictrial-scene，thedispute，as ifexpresslyintendedtobringoutthecharacteristicsof primitivesociety，isnotaboutpropertybutaboutthe compositionforahomicide。Onepersonassertsthathehaspaid it，theotherthathehasneverreceivedit。Thepointofdetail， however，whichstampsthepictureasthecounterpartofthe archaicRomanpracticeistherewarddesignedforthejudges。Two talentsofgoldlieinthemiddle，tobegiventohimwhoshall explainthegroundsofthedecisionmosttothesatisfactionof theaudience，Themagnitudeofthissumascomparedwiththe triflingamountoftheSacramentumseemstomeindicativeofthe indifferencebetweenfluctuatingusageandusageconsolidated intolaw。Thesceneintroducedbythepoetasastrikingand characteristic，butstillonlyoccasional，featureofcity-life intheheroicagehasstiffened，attheopeningofthehistory。 ofcivilprocess，intotheregular，ordinaryformalitiesofa lawsuit。ItisnaturalthereforethatintheLegisActiothe remunerationoftheJudgeshouldbereducedtoareasonablesum， andthat，insteadofbeingadjudgedtooneofanumberof arbitratorsbypopularacclamation，itshouldbepaidasamatter ofcoursetotheStatewhichthePraetorrepresents。Butthatthe incidentsdescribedsovividlybyhomer，andbyGaiuswitheven morethantheusualcrudityoftechnicallanguage，have substantiallythesamemeaning，Icannotdoubt；and，in confirmationofthisview，itmaybeaddedthatmanyobserversof theearliestjudicialusagesofmodernEuropehaveremarkedthat thefinesinflictedbyCourtsonoffenderswereoriginally sacramenta。TheStatedidnottakefromthedefendanta compositionforanywrongsupposedtobedonetoitself，but claimedashareinthecompensationawardedtotheplaintiff simplyasthefairpriceofitstimeandtrouble。Mr。Kemble expresslyassignsthischaractertotheAnglo-Saxonbannumor fredum。 Ancientlawfurnishesotherproofsthattheearliest administratorsofjusticesimulatedtheprobableactsofpersons engagedinaprivatequarrel。Insettlingthedamagestobe awarded，theytookastheirguidethemeasureofvengeancelikely tobeexactedbyanaggrievedpersonunderthecircumstancesof thecase。Thisisthetrueexplanationoftheverydifferent penaltiesimposedbyancientlawonoffenderscaughtintheact orsoonafteritandonoffendersdetectedafterconsiderable delaysomestrangeexemplificationsofthispeculiarityare suppliedbytheoldRomanlawofTheft。TheLawsoftheTwelve TablesseemtohavedividedTheftsintoManifestand Non-Manifest，andtohaveallotted。extraordinarilydifferent penaltiestotheoffenceaccordingasitfellunderoneheador theother。TheManifestThiefwashewhowascaughtwithinthe houseinwhichhehadbeenpilfering，orwhowastakenwhile makingofftoaplaceofsafetywiththestolengoods；theTwelve Tablescondemnedhimtobeputtodeathifhewerealreadya slave，and，ifhewasafreeman，theymadehimthebondsmanof theowneroftheproperty。TheNon-ManifestThiefwashewhowas detectedunderanyothercircumstancesthanthosedescribed；and theoldcodesimplydirectedthatanoffenderofthissortshould refunddoublethevalueofwhathehadstolen。InGaius’sdaythe excessiveseverityoftheTwelveTablestotheManifestThiefhad naturallybeenmuchmitigated，butthelawstillmaintainedthe oldprinciplebymulctinghiminfourfoldthevalueofthestolen goods，whiletheNon-ManifestThiefstillcontinuedtopaymerely thedouble。Theancientlawgiverdoubtlessconsideredthatthe injuredproprietor，iflefttohimself，wouldinflictavery differentpunishmentwhenhisbloodwashotfromthatwithwhich hewouldbesatisfiedwhentheThiefwasdetectedaftera considerableinterval；andtothiscalculationthelegalscaleof penaltieswasadjusted。Theprincipleispreciselythesameas thatfollowedintheAnglo-SaxonandotherGermaniccodes，when theysufferathiefchaseddownandcaughtwiththebootytobe hangedordecapitatedonthespot，whiletheyexactthefull penaltiesofhomicidefromanybodywhokillshimafterthe pursuithasbeenintermitted。Thesearchaicdistinctionsbring hometousveryforciblythedistanceofarefinedfromarude jurisprudence。Themodemadministratorofjusticehasconfessedly oneofthehardesttasksbeforehimwhenheundertakesto discriminatebetweenthedegreesofcriminalitywhichbelongto offencesfallingwithinthesametechnicaldescription。Itis alwayseasytosaythatamanisguiltyofmanslaughter，larceny， orbigamy，butitisoftenmostdifficulttopronouncewhat extentofmoralguilthehasincurred，andconsequentlywhat measureofpunishmenthehasdeserved。Thereishardlyany perplexityincasuistry，orintheanalysisofmotive，whichwe maynotbecalledupontoconfront，ifweattempttosettlesuch apointwithprecision；andaccordinglythelawofourdayshows anincreasingtendencytoabstainasmuchaspossiblefromlaying downpositiverulesonthesubject。InFrance，thejuryisleft todecidewhethertheoffencewhichitfindscommittedhasbeen attendedbyextenuatingcircumstances；inEngland，anearly unboundedlatitudeintheselectionofpunishmentsisnowallowed tothejudge；whileallStateshaveinreserveanultimateremedy forthemiscarriagesoflawinthePrerogativeofPardon， universallylodgedwiththeChiefMagistrate。Itiscuriousto observehowlittlethemenofprimitivetimesweretroubledwith thesescruples，howcompletelytheywerepersuadedthatthe impulsesoftheinjuredpersonwerethepropermeasureofthe vengeancehewasentitledtoexact，andhowliterallythey imitatedtheprobableriseandfallofhispassionsinfixing theirscaleofpunishment。Iwishitcouldbesaidthattheir methodoflegislationisquiteextinct。Thereare，however， severalmodernsystemsoflawwhich，incasesofgraverwrong， admitthefactofthewrongdoerleavingbeentakenintheactto bepleadedinjustificationofinordinatepunishmentinflictedon thembythesufferer-anindulgencewhich，thoughsuperficially regardeditmayseemintelligible，isbased，asitseemstome， onaverylowmorality。 Nothing，Ihavesaid，canbesimplerthantheconsiderations whichultimatelyledancientsocietiestotheformationofatrue criminaljurisprudence。TheStateconceiveditselftobewronged， andthePopularAssemblystruckstraightattheoffenderwiththe samemovementwhichaccompanieditslegislativeaction。itis furthertrueoftheancientworldthoughnotpreciselyofthe modern，asIshallhaveoccasiontopointout——thatthe earliestcriminaltribunalsweremerelysubdivisions，or committees，ofthelegislature。This，atallevents，isthe conclusionpointedatbythelegalhistoryofthetwogreat statesofantiquity，withtolerableclearnessinonecase，and withabsolutedistinctnessintheother。Theprimitivepenallaw ofAthensentrustedthecastigationofoffencespartlytothe Archons，whoseemtohavepunishedthemastorts，andpartlyto theSenateofAreopagus，whichpunishedthemassins。Both jurisdictionsweresubstantiallytransferredintheendtothe Heliaea，theHighCourtofPopularJustice，andthefunctionsof theArchonsandoftheAreopagusbecameeithermerelyministerial orquiteinsignificant。But\"Heliaea\"isonlyanoldwordfor Assembly；theHeliaeaofclassicaltimeswassimplythePopular Assemblyconvenedforjudicialpurposes，andthefamous DikasteriesofAthenswereonlyitssubdivisionsorpanels。The correspondingchangeswhichoccurredatRomearestillmore easilyinterpreted，becausetheRomansconfinedtheirexperiments tothepenallaw，anddidnot，liketheAthenians，construct popularcourtswithacivilaswellasacriminaljurisdiction。 ThehistoryofRomancriminaljurisprudencebeginswiththeold JudiciaPopuli，atwhichtheKingsaresaidtohavepresided。 Theseweresimplysolemntrialsofgreatoffendersunder legislativeforms。Itseems，howeverthatfromanearlyperiod theComitiahadoccasionallydelegateditscriminaljurisdiction toaQuaestioorCommission，whichboremuchthesamerelationto theAssemblyasaCommitteeoftheHouseofCommonsbearstothe Houseitself，exceptthattheRomanCommissionersorQuaestores didnotmerelyreporttotheComitia，butexercisedallpowers whichthatbodywasitselfinthehabitofexercising，evento thepassingsentenceontheAccused。AQuaestioofthissortwas onlyappointedtotryaparticularoffender，buttherewas nothingtopreventtwoorthreeQuaestionessittingatthesame time；anditisprobablethatseveralofthemwereappointed simultaneously，whenseveralgravecasesofwrongtothe communityhadoccurredtogether。Therearealsoindicationsthat nowandthentheseQuaestionesapproachedthecharacterofour StandingCommittees，inthattheywereappointedperiodically， andwithoutwaitingforoccasiontoariseinthecommissionof someseriouscrime。TheoldQuaestoresParricidii，whoare mentionedinconnectionwithtransactionsofveryancientdate， asbeingdeputedtotry(or，assometakeit，tosearchoutand try)allcasesofparicideandmurder，seemtohavebeen appointedregularlyeveryyear；andtheDuumviriPerduellionis， orCommissionofTwofortrialofviolentinjurytothe Commonwealth，arealsobelievedbymostwriterstohavebeen namedperiodically。Thedelegationsofpowertotheselatter functionariesbringussomewayforwards。insteadofbeing appointedwhenandasstate-offenceswerecommitted，theyhada general，thoughatemporaryjurisdictionoversuchasmightbe perpetrated。Ourproximitytoaregularcriminaljurisprudenceis alsoindicatedbythegeneralterms\"Parricidium\"and \"Perduellio\"whichmarktheapproachtosomethinglikea classificationofcrimes。 Thetruecriminallawdidnothowevercomeintoexistence tilltheyearB。C。149，whenL。CalpurniusPisocarriedthe statuteknownastheLexCalpurniadeRepetundis。Thelawapplied tocasesRepetundarumPecuniarum，thatis，claimsbyProvincials torecovermoniesimproperlyreceivedbyaGovernor-General，but thegreatandpermanentimportanceofthisstatutearosefromits establishingthefirstQuaestioPerpetua。AQuaestioPerpetuawas aPermanentCommissionasopposedtothosewhichwereoccasional andtothosewhichweretemporary。Itwasaregularcriminal tribunalwhoseexistencedatedfromthepassingofthestatute creatingitandcontinuedtillanotherstatuteshouldpass abolishingit。Itsmemberswerenotspeciallynominated，aswere themembersoftheolderQuaestiones，butprovisionwasmadein thelawconstitutingitforselectingfromparticularclassesthe judgeswhoweretoofficiate，andforrenewingtheminconformity withdefiniterules。Theoffencesofwhichittookcognisance werealsoexpresslynamedanddefinedinthisstatute，andthe newQuaestiohadauthoritytotryandsentenceallpersonsin futurewhoseactsshouldfallunderthedefinitionsofcrime suppliedbythelaw。Itwasthereforearegularcriminal judicature，administeringatruecriminaljurisprudence。 Theprimitivehistoryofcriminallawdividesitself thereforeintofourstages。Understandingthattheconceptionof Crime，asdistinguishedfromthatofWrongorTortandfromthat ofSin，involvestheideaofinjurytotheStateorcollective community，wefirstfindthatthecommonwealth，inliteral conformitywiththeconception，itselfinterposeddirectly，and byisolatedacts，toavengeitselfontheauthoroftheevil whichithadsuffered。Thisisthepointfromwhichwestart； eachindictmentisnowabillofpainsandpenalties，aspecial lawnamingthecriminalandprescribinghispunishment。Asecond stepisaccomplished，whenthemultiplicityofcrimescompelsthe legislaturetodelegateitspowerstoparticularQuaestionesor Commissions，eachofwhichisdeputedtoinvestigateaparticular accusation，andifitbeproved，topunishtheparticular offender。Yetanothermovementismadewhenthelegislature， insteadofwaitingfortheallegedcommissionofacrimeasthe occasionofappointingaQuaestio，periodicallynominates CommissionersliketheQuaestoresParricidiiandtheDuumviri Perduellionis，onthechanceofcertainclassesofcrimesbeing committed，andintheexpectationthattheywillbeperpetrated。 ThelaststageisreachedwhentheQuaestionesfrombeing periodicaloroccasionalbecomepermanentBenchesor Chambers-whenthejudges，insteadofbeingnamedinthe particularlawnominatingtheCommission，aredirectedtobe chosenthroughallfuturetimeinaparticularwayandfroma particularclassandwhencertainactsaredescribedingeneral languageanddeclaredtobecrimes，tobevisited，intheevent oftheirperpetration，withspecifiedpenaltiesappropriatedto eachdescription。 IftheQuaestionesPerpetuaehadhadalongerhistory，they woulddoubtlesshavecometoberegardedasadistinct institution，andtheirrelationtotheComitiawouldhaveseemed nocloserthantheconnectionofourownCourtsofLawwiththe Sovereign，whoistheoreticallythefountainofjustice。Butthe imperialdespotismdestroyedthembeforetheiroriginhadbeen completelyforgotten，and，solongastheylasted，these PermanentCommissionswerelookeduponbytheRomansasthemere depositariesofadelegatedpower。Thecognisanceofcrimeswas consideredanaturalattributeofthelegislature，andthemind ofthecitizenneverceasedtobecarriedbackfromthe Quaestiones，totheComitiawhichhaddeputedthemtoputinto exercisesomeofitsowninalienablefunctions。Theviewwhich regardedtheQuaestiones，evenwhentheybecamepermanent，as mereCommitteesofthePopularAssembly——asbodieswhichonly ministeredtoahigherauthority——hadsomeimportantlegal consequenceswhichlefttheirmarkonthecriminallawtothe verylatestperiod。OneimmediateresultwasthattheComitia continuedtoexercisecriminaljurisdictionbywayofbillof painsandpenalties，longaftertheQuaestioneshadbeen established。Thoughthelegislaturehadconsentedtodelegateits powersforthesakeofconveniencetobodiesexternaltoitself， itdidnotfollowthatitsurrenderedthem。TheComitiaandthe Quaestioneswentontryingandpunishingoffenderssidebyside； andanyunusualoutburstofpopularindignationwassure，until theextinctionoftheRepublic，tocalldownuponitsobjectan indictmentbeforetheAssemblyoftheTribes。 Oneofthemostremarkablepeculiaritiesoftheinstitutions oftheRepublicisalsotraceabletothisdependanceofthe QuaestionesontheComitia。Thedisappearanceofthepunishment ofdeathfromthepenalsystemofRepublicanRomeusedtobea veryfavouritetopicwiththewritersofthelastcentury，who wereperpetuallyusingittopointsometheoryoftheRoman characterorofmodemsocialeconomyThereasonwhichcanbe confidentlyassignedforitstampsitaspurelyfortuitous。Of thethreeformswhichtheRomanlegislaturesuccessivelyassumed， one，itiswellknown-theComitiaCenturiata——wasexclusively takentorepresenttheStateasembodiedformilitaryoperations。 TheAssemblyoftheCenturies，therefore，hadallpowerswhich maybesupposedtobeproperlylodgedwithaGeneralcommanding anarmy，and，amongthem，ithadauthoritytosubjectall offenderstothesamecorrectiontowhichasoldierrendered himselfliablebybreachesofdiscipline。TheComitiaCenturiata couldthereforeinflictcapitalpunishment。Notso，however，the ComitiaCuriataorComitiaTributa，Theywerefetteredonthis pointbythesacrednesswithwhichthepersonofaRomancitizen， insidethewallsofthecity，wasinvestedbyreligionandlaw； and，withrespecttothelastofthem，theComitiaTributa，we knowforcertainthatitbecameafixedprinciplethatthe AssemblyoftheTribescouldatmostimposeafine。Solongas criminaljurisdictionwasconfinedtothelegislature，andso longastheassembliesofthecenturiesandoftheTribes continuedtoexerciseco-ordinatepowers，itwaseasytoprefer indictmentsforgravercrimesbeforethelegislativebodywhich dispensedtheheavierpenalties；butthenithappenedthatthe moredemocraticassembly，thatoftheTribes，almostentirely supersededtheothers，andbecametheordinarylegislatureofthe laterRepublic。NowthedeclineoftheRepublicwasexactlythe periodduringwhichtheQuaestionesPerpetuaewereestablished， sothatthestatutescreatingthemwereallpassedbya legislativeassemblywhichitselfcouldnot，atitsordinary sittings，punishacriminalwithdeath。Itfollowedthatthe PermanentjudicialCommissions，holdingadelegatedauthority， werecircumscribedintheirattributesandcapacitiesbythe limitsofthepowersresidingwiththebodywhichdeputedthem。 TheycoulddonothingwhichtheAssemblyoftheTribescouldnot havedone；and，astheAssemblycouldnotsentencetodeath，the Quaestioneswereequallyincompetenttoawardcapitalpunishment。 Theanomalythusresultingwasnotviewedinancienttimeswith anythinglikethefavourwhichithasattractedamongthe moderns，andindeed，whileitisquestionablewhethertheRoman characterwasatallthebetterforit，itiscertainthatthe RomanConstitutionwasagreatdealtheworse。Likeeveryother institutionwhichhasaccompaniedthehumanracedownthecurrent ofitshistory，thepunishmentofdeathisanecessityofsociety incertainstagesofthecivilisingprocess。Thereisatimewhen theattempttodispensewithitbaulksbothofthetwogreat instinctswhichlieattherootofallpenallaw。Withoutit，the communityneitherfeelsthatitissufficientlyrevengedonthe criminal，northinksthattheexampleofhispunishmentis adequatetodeterothersfromimitatinghim。Theincompetenceof theRomanTribunalstopasssentenceofdeathleddistinctlyand directlytothosefrightfulRevolutionaryintervals，knownasthe Proscriptions，duringwhichalllawwasformallysuspendedsimply becausepartyviolencecouldfindnootheravenuetothe vengeanceforwhichitwasthirsting。Nocausecontributedso powerfullytothedecayofpoliticalcapacityintheRomanpeople asthisperiodicalabeyanceofthelaws；and，whenithadonce beenresortedto，weneednothesitatetoassertthattheruinof Romanlibertybecamemerelyaquestionoftime。Ifthepractice oftheTribunalshadaffordedanadequateventforpopular passion，theformsofjudiciAlprocedurewouldnodoubthavebeen asflagrantlypervertedaswithusinthereignsofthelater Stuarts，butnationalcharacterwouldnothavesufferedasdeeply asitdid，norwouldthestabilityofRomaninstitutionshave beenasseriouslyenfeebled。 IwillmentiontwomoresingularitiesoftheRomanCriminal Systemwhichwereproducedbythesametheoryofjudicial authority。Theyare，theextrememultiplicityoftheRoman criminaltribunals，andthecapriciousandanomalous classificationofcrimeswhichcharacterisedRomanpenal jurisprudencethroughoutitsentirehistory。EveryQuaestio，it hasbeensaid，whetherPerpetualorotherwise，haditsoriginin adistinctstatute。Fromthelawwhichcreatedit，itderivedits authority；itrigorouslyobservedthelimitswhichitscharter prescribedtoit，andtouchednoformofcriminalitywhichthat charterdidnotexpresslydefine。Asthenthestatuteswhich constitutedthevariousQuaestioneswereallcalledforthby particularemergencies，eachofthembeinginfactpassedto punishaclassofactswhichthecircumstancesofthetime renderedparticularlyodiousorparticularlydangerous，these enactmentsmadenottheslightestreferencetoeachother，and wereconnectedbynocommonprinciple。Twentyorthirtydifferent criminallawswereinexistencetogether，withexactlythesame numberofQuaestionestoadministerthem；norwasanyattempt madeduringtheRepublictofusethesedistinctjudicialbodies intoone，ortogivesymmetrytotheprovisionsofthestatutes whichappointedthemanddefinedtheirduties。Thestateofthe Romancriminaljurisdictionatthisperiod，exhibitedsome resemblancestotheadministrationofcivilremediesinEngland atthetimewhentheEnglishCourtsofCommonLawhadnotasyet introducedthosefictitiousavermentsintotheirwritswhich enabledthemtotrespassoneachother’speculiarprovince。Like theQuaestiones，theCourtsofQueen’sBench，CommonPleas，and Exchequerwerealltheoreticalemanationsfromahigher authority，andeachentertainedaspecialclassofcasessupposed tobecommittedtoitbythefountainofitsjurisdiction；but thentheRomanQuaestionesweremanymorethanthreeinnumber， anditwasinfinitelylesseasytodiscriminatetheactswhich fellunderthecognisanceofeachQuaestio，thantodistinguish betweentheprovincesofthethreeCourtsinWestminsterHall。 Thedifficultyofdrawingexactlinesbetweenthespheresofthe differentQuaestionesmadethemultiplicityofRomantribunals somethingmorethanamereinconvenience；forwereadwith astonishmentthatwhenitwasnotimmediatelyclearunderwhat generaldescriptionaman’sallegedoffencesrangedthemselves， hemightbeindictedatonceorsuccessivelybeforeseveral differentCommissions，onthechanceofsomeoneofthem declaringitselfcompetenttoconvicthim；and，although convictionbyoneQuaestiooustedthejurisdictionoftherest， acquittalbyoneofthemcouldnotbepleadedtoanaccusation beforeanother。Thiswasdirectlycontrarytotheruleofthe Romancivillaw；andwemaybesurethatapeoplesosensitiveas theRomanstoanomalies(or，astheirsignificantphrasewas，to inelegancies)injurisprudence，wouldnotlonghavetoleratedit， hadnotthemelancholyhistoryoftheQuaestionescausedthemto beregardedmuchmoreastemporaryweaponsinthehandsof factionsthanaspermanentinstitutionsforthecorrectionof crime。TheEmperorssoonabolishedthismultiplicityandconflict ofjurisdiction；butitisremarkablethattheydidnotremove anothersingularityofthecriminallawwhichstandsinclose connectionwiththenumberoftheCourts。Theclassificationsof crimeswhicharecontainedevenintheCorpusJurisofJustinian areremarkablycapricious。EachQuaestiohad，infact，confined itselftothecrimescommittedtoitscognisancebyitscharter。 Thesecrimes，however，wereonlyclassedtogetherintheoriginal statutebecausetheyhappenedtocallsimultaneouslyfor castigationatthemomentofpassingit。Theyhadnottherefore anythingnecessarilyincommon；butthefactoftheir constitutingtheparticularsubject-matteroftrialsbeforea particularQuaestioimpresseditselfnaturallyonthepublic attention，andsoinveteratedidtheassociationbecomebetween theoffencesmentionedinthesamestatutethat，evenwhenformal attemptsweremadebySyllaandbytheEmperorAugustusto consolidatetheRomancriminallawthelegislatorpreservedthe oldgrouping。TheStatutesofSyllaandAugustuswerethe foundationofthepenaljurisprudenceoftheEmpire，andnothing canbemoreextraordinarythansomeoftheclassificationswhich theybequeathedtoit。Ineedonlygiveasingleexampleinthe factthatperjurywasalwaysclassedwithcuttingandwounding andwithpoisoning，nodoubtbecausealawofSylla，theLex CorneliadeSicariisetVeneficis，hadgivenjurisdictionover allthesethreeformsofcrimetothesamePermanentCommission。 Itseemstoothatthiscapriciousgroupingofcrimesaffectedthe vernacularspeechoftheRomans。Peoplenaturallyfellintothe habitofdesignatingalltheoffencesenumeratedinonelawby thefirstnameonthelist，whichdoubtlessgaveitsstyletothe LawCourtdeputedtotrythemall。Alltheoffencestriedbythe QuaestioDeAdulteriiswouldthusbecalledAdultery。 IhavedweltonthehistoryandcharacteristicsoftheRoman Quaestionesbecausetheformationofacriminaljurisprudenceis nowhereelsesoinstructivelyexemplified。ThelastQuaestiones wereaddedbytheEmperorAugustus，andfromthattimetheRomans maybesaidtohavehadatolerablycompletecriminallaw。 Concurrentlywithitsgrowth，theanalogousprocesshadgoneon， whichIhavecalledtheconversionofWrongsintoCrimes，for thoughtheRomanlegislaturedidnotextinguishthecivil，remedy forthemoreheinousoffences，itofferedthesuffereraredress whichhewassuretoprefer。Still，evenafterAugustushad completedhislegislation，severaloffencescontinuedtobe regardedasWrongs，whichmodernsocietieslookuponexclusively asCrimes；nordidtheybecomecriminallypunishabletillsome latebutuncertaindate，atwhichthelawbegantotakenoticeof anewdescriptionofoffencescalledintheDigestcrimina extraordinaria。Theseweredoubtlessaclassofactswhichthe theoryofRomanjurisprudencetreatedmerelyaswrongs；butthe growingsenseofthemajestyofsocietyrevoltedfromtheir entailingnothingworseontheirperpetratorthanthepaymentof moneydamages，andaccordinglytheinjuredpersonseemstohave beenpermitted，ifhepleased，topursuethemascrimesextra ordinem，thatisbyamodeofredressdepartinginsomerespect orotherfromtheordinaryprocedure。Fromthisperiodatwhich thesecriminaextraordinariawerefirstrecognised，thelistof crimesintheRomanStatemusthavebeenaslongasinany communityofthemodernworld。 Itisunnecessarytodescribewithanyminutenessthemodeof administeringcriminaljusticeundertheRomanEmpire，butitis tobenotedthatbothitstheoryandpracticehavehadpowerful effectonmodernsociety。TheEmperorsdidnotimmediately abolishtheQuaestiones，andatfirsttheycommittedanextensive criminaljurisdictiontotheSenate，inwhich，howeverservileit mightshowitselfinfact，theEmperorwasnomorenominally。 thanaSenatorliketherest。Butsomesortofcollateral criminaljurisdictionhadbeenclaimedbythePrincefromthe first；andthis，asrecollectionsofthefreecommonwealth decayed，tendedsteadilytogainattheexpenseoftheold tribunals。Graduallythepunishmentofcrimeswastransferredto magistratesdirectlynominatedbytheEmperorandtheprivileges oftheSenatepassedtotheImperialPrivyCouncil，whichalso becameaCourtofultimatecriminalappeal。Underthese influencesthedoctrine，familiartothemoderns，insensibly shapeditselfthattheSovereignisthefountainofallJustice andthedepositaryofallGrace。Itwasnotsomuchthefruitof increasingadulationandservilityasofthecentralisationof theEmpirewhichhadbythistimeperfecteditself。Thetheoryof criminaljusticehad，infact，workedroundalmosttothepoint fromwhichitstarted。Ithadbeguninthebeliefthatitwasthe businessofthecollectivecommunitytoavengeitsownwrongsby itsownhand；anditendedinthedoctrinethatthechastisement ofcrimesbelongedinanespecialmannertotheSovereignas representativeandmandataryofhispeople。Thenewviewdiffered fromtheoldonechieflyintheairofawfulnessandmajesty whichtheguardianshipofjusticeappearedtothrowaroundthe personoftheSovereign。 ThislaterRomanviewoftheSovereign’srelationtojustice certainlyassistedinsavingmodernsocietiesfromthenecessity oftravellingthroughtheseriesofchangeswhichIhave illustratedbythehistoryoftheQuaestiones。Intheprimitive lawofalmostalltheraceswhichhavepeopledWesternEurope therearevestigesofthearchaicnotionthatthepunishmentof crimesbelongstothegeneralassemblyoffreemen；andthereare someStates——Scotlandissaidtobeoneofthem——inwhichthe parentageoftheexistingjudicaturecanbetraceduptoa Committeeofthelegislativebody。Butthedevelopmentofthe criminallawwasuniversallyhastenedbytwocauses，thememory oftheRomanEmpireandtheinfluenceoftheChurch。Ontheone handtraditionsofthemajestyoftheCaesars，perpetuatedbythe temporaryascendencyoftheHouseofCharlemagne，were surroundingSovereignswithaprestigewhichamerebarbarous chieftaincouldneverotherwisehaveacquiredandwere communicatingtothepettiestfeudalpotentatethecharacterof guardianofsocietyandrepresentativeoftheState。Ontheother hand，theChurch，initsanxietytoputacurbonsanguinary ferocity，soughtaboutforauthoritytopunishthegraver misdeeds，andfounditinthosepassagesofScripturewhichspeak withapprovalofthepowersofpunishmentcommittedtothecivil magistrate。TheNewTestamentwasappealedtoasprovingthat secularrulersexistfortheterrorofevildoers；theOld Testament，aslayingdownthat\"Whososheddethman’sblood，by manshallhisbloodbeshed。\"Therecanbenodoubt，Iimagine， thatmodernideasonthesubjectofcrimearebasedupontwo assumptionscontendedforbytheChurchintheDarkAges-first， thateachfeudalruler，inhisdegree，mightbeassimilatedto theRomanMagistratesspokenofbySaintPaul；andnext，thatthe offenceswhichhewastochastisewerethoseselectedfor prohibitionintheMosaicCommandments，orrathersuchofthemas theChurchdidnotreservetoherowncognisance。Heresy (supposedtobeincludedintheFirstandSecondCommandments)， Adultery，andPerjurywereecclesiasticaloffences，andthe Churchonlyadmittedtheco-operationoftheseculararmforthe purposeofinflictingsevererpunishmentincasesof extraordinaryaggravation。Atthesametime，shetaughtthat murderandrobberywiththeirvariousmodificationswereunder thejurisdictionofcivilrulers，notasanaccidentoftheir positionbutbytheexpressordinanceofGod。 ThereisapassageinthewritingsofKingAlfred(Kemble， ii。209)whichbringsoutintoremarkableclearnessthestruggle ofthevariousideasthatprevailedinhisdayastotheorigin ofcriminaljurisdiction。ItwillbeseenthatAlfredattributes itpartlytotheauthorityoftheChurchandpartlytothatof theWitan，whileheexpresslyclaimsfortreasonagainstthelord thesameimmunityfromordinaryruleswhichtheRomanLawof MajestashadassignedtotreasonagainsttheCaesar。\"Afterthis ithappened，\"hewrites，\"thatmanynationsreceivedthefaithof Christ，andthereweremanysynodsassembledthroughoutthe earth，andamongtheEnglishracealsoaftertheyhadreceived thefaithofChrist，bothofholybishopsandoftheirexalted Witan。Theythenordainedthat，outofthatmercywhichChrist hadtaught，secularlords，withtheirleave，mightwithoutsin takeforeverymisdeedthebotinmoneywhichtheyordained； exceptincasesoftreasonagainstalord，towhichtheydared notassignanymercybecauseAlmightyGodadjudgednonetothem thatdespisedHim，nordidChristadjudgeanytothemwhichsold Himtodeath；andHecommandedthatalordshouldbelovedlike Himself。\" End