released himself from the miseries of this life, and his children are reduced to beggary because their father is dead.

In some Roman catholic provinces, the head of a family is condemned to the gallies for life, by an arbitrary sentence, for having harboured a preacher in his house, or for having heard one of his sermons in some cavern or desert place, and his wife and family are forced to beg their bread.

*

This jurisprudence, which consists in depriving orphans of their food, was unknown to the Roman commonwealth. Sylla introduced it in his proscriptions; and it must be acknowledged that a rapine invented by Sylla was not an example to be followed. Nor was this law, which seems to have been dictated by inhumanity and avarice alone, followed either by Cæsar, or by the good emperor Trajan, or by the Antonines, whose names are still pronounced in every nation with love and reverence. Even under Justi nian, confiscations took place only in cases of high treason. Those who were accused having been, for the most part, men of great possessions, it seems that Justinian made this ordinance through avarice alone. It also appears that, in the times of feudal anarchy, the princes and lords of lands, being not very rich, sought to increase their treasure by the condemnation of their subjects. They were allowed to draw a revenue from crime. Their laws being arbitrary, and the Roman jurisprudence unknown among them, their customs, whether whimsical or cruel, prevailed. But now that the power of sovereigns is founded on immense and assured wealth, their treasure needs no longer to be swelled by the slender wreck of the fortunes of some unhappy family. It is true that the goods so appropriated are usually abandoned to the first who asks for them. But is it for one citizen to fatten on the remains of the blood of another citizen?

Confiscation is not admitted in countries where the

* See the edict of May 14, 1724, published at the solicitation of cardinal de Fleuri, and revised by him.

Roman law is established, except within the jurisdiction of the parliament of Toulouse. It was formerly established at Calais, where it was abolished by the English, when they were masters of that place.

It appears very strange, that the inhabitants of the capital live under a more rigorous law than those of the smaller towns; so true is it, that jurisprudence has often been established by chance, without regularity, without uniformity, as the huts are built in a village.

The following was spoken by advocate-general Omer Talon, in full parliament, at the most glorious period in the annals of France, in 1673, concerning the property of one mademoiselle de Canillac, which had been confiscated. Reader, attend to this speech: it is not in the style of Cicero's oratory, but it is curious.

"In the thirteenth chapter of Deuteronomy, God says "If thou shalt find a city where idolatry prevails, thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein. And thou shalt gather all the spoil of it into the midst of the street thereof, and shalt burn with fire the city and all the spoil thereof, every whit, for the Lord thy God.'

"So in the crime of high treason, the king seized the property, and the children were deprived of it. Naboth having been proceeded against, quia maledixerat regi,' king Ahab took possession of his inheritance. David, being apprised that Mephibosheth had taken part in the rebellion, gave all his goods to Sheba, who brought him the news- Tibi sunt omnia quæ fuerunt Mephibosheth.'

The question here was, who should inherit the property of mademoiselle de Canillac-property formerly confiscated from her father, abandoned by the king to

* A pleasant specimen of equity pleading, and almost as sound as the decision of another chancellor in respect to literary property. It is however certainly scripturally supported, being precisely the sort of equity displayed by David towards the descendant of Saul, and of that Jonathan to whom his soul was knit.-T.

a keeper of the royal treasure, and afterwards given by this keeper of the royal treasure to the testatrix. And in this case of a woman of Auvergne a lawyer refers us to that of Ahab, one of the petty kings of a part of Palestine, who confiscated Naboth's vineyard, after assassinating its proprietor with the poniard of Jewish justice-an abominable act, which has become a proverb, to inspire men with a horror for usurpation! Assuredly, Naboth's vineyard has no connection with mademoiselle de Canillac's inheritance. Nor do the murder and confiscation of the goods of Mephibosheth, grandson of king Saul, and son of David's friend Jonathan, bear a much greater affinity to this lady's will.

With this pedantry, this rage for citations foreign. to the subject; with this ignorance of the first principles of human nature; with these ill conceived and ill adapted prejudices, has jurisprudence been treated on by men who, in their sphere, have had some reputation.

CONSCIENCE.

SECTION I.

Of the Conscience of Good and of Evil.

LOCKE has demonstrated (if we may use that term in morals and metaphysics) that we have no innate ideas or principles. He was obliged to demonstrate this position at great length, as the contrary was at that time universally believed.

It hence clearly follows, that it is necessary to instil just ideas and good principles into the mind as soon as it acquires the use of its faculties.

Locke adduces the example of savages, who kill and devour their neighbour without any remorse of conscience; and of Christian soldiers, decently educated, who, on the taking of a city by assault, plunder, slay, and violate, not merely without remorse, but with rapture, honour, and glory, and with the applause of all their comrades.

It is perfectly certain that, in the massacres of Saint

Bartholomew, and in the "autos-da-fe," the holy acts of faith of the Inquisition, no murderer's conscience ever upbraided him with having massacred men, women, and children, or with the shrieks, faintings, and dying tortures of his miserable victims, whose only crime consisted in keeping Easter in a manner different from that of the inquisitors.

It results, therefore, from what has been stated, that we have no other conscience than what is created in us by the spirit of the age, by example, and by our own dispositions and reflections.

Man is born without principles, but with the faculty of receiving them. His natural disposition will incline him either to cruelty or kindness; his understanding will in time inform him that the square of twelve is a hundred and forty-four, and that he ought not to do to others what he would not that others should do to him; but he will not, of himself, acquire these truths in early childhood. He will not understand the first, and he will not feel the second.

A young savage who, when hungry, has received from his father a piece of another savage to eat, will, on the morrow, ask for the like meal, without thinking about any obligation not to treat a neighbour otherwise than he would be treated himself. He acts, mechanically and irresistibly, directly contrary to that eternal principle.

Nature has made a provision against such horrors. She has given to man a disposition to pity, and the power of comprehending truth. These two gifts of God constitute the foundation of civil society. This is the cause that there have ever been but few cannibals; and which renders life, among civilized nations, a little tolerable. Fathers and mothers bestow on their children an education which soon renders them social, and this education confers on them a conscience.

Pure religion and morality early inculcated, so strongly impress the human heart, that, from the age of sixteen or seventeen, a single bad action will not be performed without the upbraidings of conscience. Then rush on those headlong passions which war

against conscience, and sometimes destroy it. During the conflict, men hurried on by the tempest of their feelings, on various occasions, consult the advice of others; as, in physical diseases, they ask it of those who appear to enjoy good health.

This it is which has produced casuists; that is, persons who decide on cases of conscience. One of the wisest casuists was Cicero. In his book of " Offices,"

or

"Duties" of man, he investigates points of the greatest nicety; but long before him Zoroaster had appeared in the world to guide the conscience by the most beautiful precept" If you doubt whether an action be good or bad, abstain from doing it." We treat of this elsewhere.*

Whether a Judge should decide according to his Conscience, or according to the Evidence.

Thomas Aquinas, you are a great saint and a great divine, and no Dominican has a greater veneration for you than I have; but you have decided, in your Summary," that a judge ought to give sentence according to the evidence produced against the person accused, although he knows that person to be perfectly innocent. You maintain that the deposition of witnesses, which must inevitably be false, and the pretended proofs resulting from the process, which are impertinent, ought to weigh down the testimony of his own senses. He saw the crime committed by another; and yet, according to you, he ought in conscience to condemn the accused, although his conscience tells him the accused is innocent.

According to your doctrine, therefore, if the judge had himself committed the crime in question, his conscience ought to oblige him to condemn the man falsely accused of it.

In my conscience, great Saint, I conceive that you are most absurdly and most dreadfully deceived. It is a pity, that while possessing such a knowledge of canon law, you should be so ill acquainted with natural law. The duty of a magistrate to be just,

*See JUST-Religion-Zoroaster.