the spirit of laws-第151节

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！


　which　a　person　who　had　stripped　a　dead　body　was　expelled　from　society　till　the　relatives　upon　receiving　satisfaction　petitioned　for　his　being　re…admitted。＇145＇　It　was　owing　to　the　respect　they　had　for　sacred　things　that　the　compilers　of　the　Salic　laws　did　not　meddle　with　the　ancient　usage。

It　would　have　been　absolutely　unjust　to　grant　a　composition　to　the　relatives　of　a　robber　killed　in　the　act；　or　to　the　relatives　of　a　woman　who　had　been　repudiated　for　the　crime　of　adultery。　The　law　of　the　Bavarians　allowed　no　compositions　in　the　like　cases；　but　punished　the　relatives　who　sought　revenge。＇146＇

It　is　no　rare　thing　to　meet　with　compositions　for　involuntary　actions　in　the　codes　of　the　laws　of　the　Barbarians。　The　law　of　the　Lombards　is　generally　very　prudent；　it　ordained＇147＇　that　in　those　cases　the　compositions　should　be　according　to　the　person's　generosity；　and　that　the　relatives　should　no　longer　be　permitted　to　pursue　their　revenge。

Clotharius　II　made　a　very　wise　decree；　he　forbad　the　person　robbed　to　receive　any　clandestine　composition；　and　without　an　order　from　the　judge。＇148＇　We　shall　presently　see　the　motive　of　this　law。

20。　Of　what　was　afterwards　called　the　Jurisdiction　of　the　Lords。　Besides　the　composition　which　they　were　obliged　to　pay　to　the　relatives　for　murders　or　injuries；　they　were　also　under　a　necessity　of　paying　a　certain　duty　which　the　codes　of　the　barbarian　laws　called　fredum。＇149＇　I　intend　to　treat　of　it　at　large；　and　in　order　to　give　an　idea　of　it；　I　begin　with　defining　it　as　a　recompense　for　the　protection　granted　against　the　right　of　vengeance。　Even　to　this　day；　fred　in　the　Swedish　language　signifies　peace。

The　administration　of　justice　among　those　rude　and　unpolished　nations　was　nothing　more　than　granting　to　the　person　who　had　committed　an　offence　a　protection　against　the　vengeance　of　the　party　offended；　and　obliging　the　latter　to　accept　of　the　satisfaction　due　to　him：　insomuch　that　among　the　Germans；　contrary　to　the　practice　of　all　other　nations；　justice　was　administered　in　order　to　protect　the　criminal　against　the　party　injured。

The　codes　of　the　Barbarian　laws　have　given　us　the　cases　in　which　the　freda　might　be　demanded。　When　the　relatives　could　not　prosecute；　they　allowed　of　no　fredum；　and　indeed；　when　there　was　no　prosecution　there　could　be　no　composition　for　a　protection　against　it。　Thus；　in　the　law　of　the　Lombards；＇150＇　if　a　person　happened　to　kill　a　freeman　by　accident；　he　paid　the　value　of　the　man　killed；　without　the　fredum；　because；　as　he　had　killed　him　involuntarily；　it　was　not　the　case　in　which　the　relatives　were　allowed　the　right　of　prosecution。　Thus　in　the　law　of　the　Ripuarians；＇151＇　when　a　person　was　killed　with　a　piece　of　wood；　or　with　any　instrument　made　by　man；　the　instrument　or　the　wood　were　deemed　culpable；　and　the　relatives　seized　upon　them　for　their　own　use；　but　were　not　allowed　to　demand　the　fredum。

In　like　manner；　when　a　beast　happened　to　kill　a　man；　the　same　law　established　a　composition　without　the　fredum；　because　the　relatives　of　the　deceased　were　not　offended。＇152＇

In　fine；　it　was　ordained　by　the　Salic　law；＇153＇　that　a　child　who　had　committed　a　fault　before　the　age　of　twelve　should　pay　the　composition　without　the　fredum：　as　he　was　not　yet　able　to　bear　arms；　he　could　not　be　in　the　case　in　which　the　party　injured；　or　his　relatives；　had　a　right　to　demand　satisfaction。

It　was　the　criminal　that　paid　the　fredum　for　the　peace　and　security　of　which　he　had　been　deprived　by　his　crime；　and　which　he　might　recover　by　protection。　But　a　child　did　not　lose　this　security；　he　was　not　a　man；　and　consequently　could　not　be　expelled　from　human　society。

This　fredum　was　a　local　right　in　favour　of　the　person　who　was　judge　of　the　district。＇154＇　Yet　the　law　of　the　Ripuarians＇155＇　forbade　him　to　demand　it　himself：　it　ordained　that　the　party　who　had　gained　the　cause　should　receive　it　and　carry　it　to　the　exchequer；　to　the　end　that　there　might　be　a　lasting　peace；　says　the　law　among　the　Ripuarians。

The　greatness　of　the　fredum　was　proportioned　to　the　degree　of　protection：　thus　the　fredum　for　the　king's　protection　was　greater　than　what　was　granted　for　the　protection　of　the　count；　or　of　the　other　judges。＇156＇

Here　I　see　the　origin　of　the　jurisdiction　of　the　lords。　The　fiefs　comprised　very　large　territories；　as　appears　from　a　vast　number　of　records。　I　have　already　proved　that　the　kings　raised　no　taxes　on　the　lands　belonging　to　the　division　of　the　Franks；　much　less　could　they　reserve　to　themselves　any　duties　on　the　fiefs。　Those　who　obtained　them　had　in　this　respect　a　full　and　perfect　enjoyment；　reaping　every　possible　emolument　from　them。　And　as　one　of　the　most　considerable　emoluments　was　the　justiciary　profits　（freda）；＇157＇　which　were　received　according　to　the　usage　of　the　Franks；　it　followed　thence　that　the　person　seized　of　the　fief　was　also　seized　of　the　jurisdiction；　the　exercise　of　which　consisted　of　the　compositions　made　to　the　relatives；　and　of　the　profits　accruing　to　the　lord；　it　was　nothing　more　than　ordering　the　payment　of　the　compositions　of　the　law；　and　demanding　the　legal　fines。　We　find　by　the　formularies　containing　confirmation　of　the　perpetuity　of　a　fief　in　favour　of　a　feudal　lord；＇158＇　or　of　the　privileges　of　fiefs　in　favour　of　churches；＇159＇　that　the　fiefs　were　possessed　of　this　right。　This　appears　also　from　an　infinite　number　of　charters＇160＇　mentioning　a　prohibition　to　the　king's　judges　or　officers　of　entering　upon　the　territory　in　order　to　exercise　any　act　of　judicature　whatsoever；　or　to　demand　any　judiciary　emolument。　When　the　king's　judges　could　no　longer　make　any　demand　in　a　district；　they　never　entered　it；　and　those　to　whom　this　district　was　left　performed　the　same　functions　as　had　been　exercised　before　by　the　judges。

The　king's　judges　are　forbidden　also　to　oblige　the　parties　to　give　security　for　their　appearing　before　them；　it　belonged　therefore　to　the　person　who　had　received　the　territory　in　fief　to　demand　this　security。　They　mention　also　that　the　king's　commissaries　shall　not　insist　upon　being　accommodated　with　a　lodging；　in　effect；　they　no　longer　exercised　any　function　in　those　districts。

The　administration　therefore　of　justice；　both　in　the　old　and　new　fiefs；　was　a　right　inherent　in　the　very　fief　itself；　a　lucrative　right　which　constituted　a　part　of　it。　For　this　reason　it　had　been　considered　at　all　times　in　this　light；　whence　this　maxim　arose；　that　jurisdictions　are　patrimonial　in　France。

Some　have　thought　that　the　jurisdictions　derived　their　origin　from　the　manumissions　made　by　the　kings　and　lords　in　favour　of　their　bondmen。　But　the　German　nations；　and　those　descended　from　them；　are　not　the　only　people　who　manumitted　their　bondmen；　and　yet　they　are　the　only　people　that　established　patrimonial　jurisdictions。　Besides；　we　find　by　the　formularies　of　Marculfus＇161＇　that　there　were　freemen　dependent　on　these　jurisdictions　in　the　earliest　times：　the　bondmen　were　therefore　subject　to　the　jurisdiction；　because　they　were　upon　the　territory；　and　they　did　not　give　rise　to　the　fiefs　for　having　been　annexed　to　the　fief。

Others　have　taken　a　shorter　cut；　the　lords；　say　they　（and　this　is　all　they　say）；　usurped　the　jurisdictions。　But　are　the　nations　descended　from　Germany　the　only　people　in　the　world　that　usurped　the　rights　of　princes？　We　are　sufficiently　informed　by　history　that　several　other　nations　have　encroached　upon　their　sovereigns；　and　yet　we　find　no　other　instance　of　what　we　call　the　jurisdiction　of　the　lords。　The　origin　of　it　is　therefore　to　be　traced　in　the　usages　and　customs　of　the　Germans。

Whoever　has　the　curiosity　to　look　into　Loyseau＇162＇　will　be　surprised　at　the　manner　in　which　this　author　supposes　the　lords　to　have　proceeded　in　order　to　form　and　usurp　their　different　jurisdictions。　They　must　have　been　the　most　artful　people　in　the　world；　they　must　have　robbed　and　plundered；　not　after　the　manner　of　a　military　nation；　but　as　the　country　justices　and　the　attornies　rob　one　another。　Those　brave　warriors　must　be　said　to　have　formed　a　general　system　of　politics　throughout　all　the　provinces　of　the　kingdom；　and　in　so　many　other　countries　in　Europe；　Loyseau　makes　them　reason　as　he　himself　reasoned　in　his　closet。

Once　more；　if　the　jurisdiction　was　not　a　dependence　of　the　fief；　how　come　we　everywhere　to　find　that　the　service　of　the　fief　was　to　attend　the　king　or　the　lord；　both　in　their　courts　and　in　the　army？＇163＇

21。　Of　the　Territorial　Jurisdiction　of　the　Churches。　The　churches　acquired　very　considerable　property。　We　find　that　our　kings　gave　them　great　seigniories；　that　is；　great　fiefs；　and　we　find　jurisdictions　established　at　the　same　time　in　the　demesnes　of　those　churches。　Whence　could　so　extraordinary　a　privilege　derive　its　origin？　it　must　certainly　have　been　in　the　nature　of　the　grant。　The　church　land　had　this　privilege　because　it　had　not　been　taken　from　it。　A　seigniory　was　given　to　the　church；　and　it　was　allowed　to　enjoy　the　same　privileges　as　if　it　had　been　granted　to　a　vassal；　it　was　also　subjected　to　the　same　service　as　it　would　have　paid　to　the　state　if　it　had　been　given　to　a　layman；　according　to　what　we　have　already　observed。

The　churches　had　therefore　the　right　of　demanding　the　payment　of　compositions　in　their　territory；　and　of　insisting　upon