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。"WhileGreektheologyMilman，LatinChristianity，Preface，5wentondefiningwithstillmoreexquisitesubtletytheGodheadandthenatureofChrist"——"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。"Theproficiency2*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。KembleAnglo-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，
　　asbeingdeputedtotryor，assometakeit，tosearchoutand
　　tryallcasesofparicideandmurder，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
　　theRomanstoanomaliesor，astheirsignificantphrasewas，to
　　ineleganciesinjurisprudence，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。
　　ThereisapassageinthewritingsofKingAlfredKemble，
　　ii。209whichbringsoutintoremarkableclearnessthestruggle
　　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