صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

gine, to a much earlier period than this, and transport ourselves back to the time when the right of avenging injuries and inflicting punishment was vested in the hands of individuals, and depended more upon private caprice than any authorised or acknowledged form of law.

Many traces of this singular state of society are still preserved in ancient historical records; and it is only a doctrine of late introduction that public justice ought to supersede the right of individual revenge. In the infancy

of modern jurisprudence, any person who chose was allowed to signify publiely the law to which he gave the preference; and by the prescriptions of that law he was obliged to regulate his conduct, without being bound to comply with any practice authorised by other codes of law.* The sentence of a judge, in these times, might be set aside by any one who had hardihood sufficient to call in question the equity of his decision, and courage to substantiate the charge by an appeal to arms; nor could the judge, without infamy, refuse to accept the challenge, or decline to enter the lists against such an adversary.t In what, then, Mr. Editor, do such lawless proceedings differ from the rude customs of barbarians and savages, except that in the one case, each individual is to avenge his own wrongs, without appealing to any authorised tribunal for redress; and, in the other, when dissatisfied with the result of a legal process in a court of justice, or unwilling to trust his cause to the decision of competent judges, he takes the law into his own hands, and closes the business in a summary way by endangering both his own life and that of his accuser? Is it, Sir, in the nature of things possible, that a custom which bids defiance to all the established forms of law, should be allowed to gain a footing in a civilised country, unless it owed its birth to times far remote, and to circumstances over which decrees and statutes possessed no kind of controul? Could senates authorize a prac tice so absurd and monstrous, unless it had originated among a people with out laws and without magistrates, and had been rendered familiar to them by inveterate habit and long experience? No, Mr. Editor, the supposition is too fallacious to be indulged even for a moment; and if the existence of the practice in question is to be accounted for upon any known principle, it will be found, I am convinced, to have originated in an age far distant from that to which it has been traced by Robertson and Montesquieu.

Nations, in their infaney, have always some features in common, as chil dren, in different countries, have certain resemblances of figure and manners dependant upon their age. Time and accident, however, exert a perceptible influence over the habits of individuals and produce an endless variety of character among them; and in like manner, whole bodies of people, when they emerge from a state of nature and lose their ancient simplicity, adopt particular customs, and yield to the influence of external circumstances, so that their characters become as different, in the course of time, as the soil and climate of the land in which they dwell. This fact will account, in a great measure, for the variety which now exists in the laws, manners, and customs of different European nations, which formerly belonged to the same stock, and submitted to the same form of government; and if the origin of

Leg. Longob. lib. îî. tît. 55, § 38. † Robertson's Hist. of Charles V. vol. i. p. 62.

the appeal of murder, and trial by single combat, can now by any possible means be traced, this will assuredly afford the only true principle of solution.

Let us figure to ourselves a nation in its earliest and rudest state, where every father of a family exerts an unlimited authority over his children and dependants, and claims them as his own exclusive property. Under such circumstances, each clan of course becomes attached to its own leader ; and, as individual security can result only from a strong principle of union among the body, an injury offered to one must necessarily be regarded as the common cause of all. If any person, for instance, should attempt, by violent means, to deprive his neighbour of the fruits of his industry, it would then become his duty to oppose force to force. If, however, his antagonist, being stronger or better armed than himself, should prevail, he would then seek the means of redress among the members of his own elan, and would call upon them to unite with him in taking vengeance on the aggressor. If, again, his property should be taken away by stealth, or any of his family should meet with a violent death, there being no regular tribunal to which he can appeal, he would be under the necessity of claiming for himself the right of exacting punishment from the offender; and though circumstances, in such a case, must of course determine how far it would be politie or safe for him to proceed, yet individual security would require that, as a general principle, restitution should be made to the uttermost, and blood should be repaid with blood.

It is to a state of society like this, then, Mr. Editor, that we must look for the origin of the trial by battle; and, if we compare the laws and institutions of different countries, however far advanced in the progress of civilisation, and however remotely situated from each other, we shall probably discover, in most of them, something to remind us of these patriarchal

times.

The law of Moses is the most ancient authority upon the subject to which an appeal can be made, and there we find abundant examples to establish the fact with regard to the Hebrew nation. It is decreed, for instance, Lev. XXV. 25. that the next heir shall have the right of redeeming a mortgaged field; and, Num. v. 8. that property purloined from a person since dead shall be restored to the nearest descendant. We read, also, Num. xxxv. 12, 19, 26, 27, and elsewhere, of the avenger of blood, and the power granted to him of taking away the life of a murderer, subject to such restrictions as Moses thought proper to enjoin.

We find, likewise, traces of the same custom among the descendants of Ishmael, who inhabit Arabia Petran and Deserta, and particularly among the Bedouins, who live, at this day, in little better than a complete state of nature. "Among these Arabs," says Michaëlis,* "that man is in the highest degree contemptible, and the subject of universal reproach, who has not avenged his relation's death; or is at least as much despised as the military man among us who refuses a challenge. On the other hand, the avengment of blood is, with them, a man's highest praise; and is regarded as a proof of valour and magnanimity." This, however, is not the character of all the

Comm. on the Law of Moses, vol. ii. art. 134, § 4.

Arabs indiscriminately; though we find a law enjoining such a practice, under certain restrictions, among the precepts of the Koran, chap. xvii. 35. "If a man is unlawfully killed, we give to his nearest relation the right of revenge: but, let him not go beyond bounds in putting the murderer to death; that is, let him not have recourse to cruelty and torture in doing it.

[ocr errors]

"Among the Abyssinians, who came originally from Arabia Felix, across the Red Sea, I find," says Michaëlis, "from the Jesuit Lobos, Relation historique d' Abyssinie, i. p. 122-124, that the magistrate first discovers the murderer, and then delivers him to the vengeance of the nearest kinsman of the deceased. Here, therefore, we have an example of this practice under the superintendance of the magistrate."

In Persia the relations of an individual who has been murdered, go before a court of justice, uttering loud lamentations, and demanding that the mur derer may be delivered into their hands; on which the judge commits the prisoner to their charge, pronouncing at the same time, these words "I give this murderer into your hands; take satisfaction yourselves for the blood which he has shed; but remember that God is just and merciful." The relations are then at liberty to glut their vengeance upon the murderer in what way they please.*

According to the laws of the Athenians, if any one come to an untimely end, his nearest relations might bring the action of Ardgoλnia against those whom they suspected, either to be abettors of the crime, or protectors of the felon and the right of prosecution in all cases of murder belonged to the kindred of the murdered, kinsfolk's children, and those of the same gargiat.

It was decreed, also, in the Roman laws,‡ "hæredes, quos necem testatoris inultam omisisse constiterit, fructus integros cogantur reddere."

[ocr errors]

In Germany, likewise, from which many of our own institutions and customs have been borrowed, the most distant relations took a very considerable share to themselves in every affront, as we read in the admirable treatise of Tacitus,§" Suscipere tam inimicitias, seu patris, seu propinqui, quàm amicitias necesse est." This sentence is in the usual style of the Roman historian, brief but expressive; and the best comment upon it will be found in the decrees and statutes to which it gave rise, in after times, when laws were first collected and arranged into a system. "Ad quemcunque hæreditas terræ pervenerit, ad illum vestis bellica, id est, lorica, et ultio proximi, et solutio leudis, debet pertinere."l|

These are all remnants of an age long prior to that in which regular laws were instituted; and in my view of the subject, bear strong marks of affinity to the practice which it has been the object of this paper to retrace from the state in which we now find it to its first origin. If any of your cor respondents, however, can shew that the theory which I have adopted is founded upon erroneous principles, it will ee the means of throwing

• Sir John's Chardin's Travels, &c. 4to. edit. 1711. p. 292.

+ Potter's Archæologia Græca, edit. 1728, vol. i. bk. i. ch. 26. p. 177.

more

Cod. lib. vi. tit. XXXV. de his, quibus, ut indignis, hæreditates auferuntur. Leg, 1. § Germania, § 21. Lex Angl. et Werin. Tit. 6 de Alodibus. Leg. 5.

light on a subject which would probably have remained in that obscurity in which time never ceases to veil the rude productions of a barbarous age, had not recent circumstances excited considerable attention to it.

VERMICULUS,

P. S. Since writing the above, I have met with the following passage from Blackstone, which seems so much to my purpose that I am tempted to transcribe it :

"The decision of suits, by an appeal to the God of battles, is by some said to have been invented by the Burgundi, one of the northern or German clans that planted themselves in Gaul. And it is true, that the first written injunction of judiciary combats that we meet with, is in the laws of Gundebald, A.D. 501, which are preserved in the Burgundian code. Yet it does not seem to have been merely a local custom of this or that particular tribe, but to have been the common usage of all those warlike people from the earliest times. And it may also seem from a passage in Velleius Paterculus, that the Germans, when they first became known to the Romans, were wont to decide all contests of right by the sword: for when Quintilius Varus endea voured to introduce among them the Roman laws and method of trial, it was looked upon (says the historian) as a "novitas incognitæ disciplinæ, ut solita armis decerni jure terminarentur. And among the ancient Goths in Sweden we find the practice of judiciary duels established upon much the same footing as they formerly were in our country." Blackstone's Comm. 15th ed. vol. iii. b. iii. ch. 22. p. 337. See also vol. iv. b. iv, ch. 33. P. .417.

[ocr errors]
[merged small][ocr errors]

THE impression made upon my mind, when little more than a child, on first reading the account of the Apostles receiving the Gift of Tongues, as related in the 2nd chapter of the Acts, was, that every person present, of whatever nation he might be, heard, at the same time, the speaker in the language of his (the hearer's) own country.

This I soon learned, to my surprise, was not the sense in which it was generally, perhaps universally, understood.

First impressions are often very strong, and difficult to eradicate. Perhaps we frequently are more desirous to seek for reasons to establish them, than anxious to supplant them. This may be the case with me in this instance. I shall, however, after having stated the reasons which have been suggested to my mind, in support of my preconceived opinion, leave others to judge for themselves; and, if they please, to state their reasons for entertaining a contrary opinion. Though the question is not of vital importance, it is not an uninteresting one. Whenever God works a miracle, I apprehend, that it is such as, most fully, to answer the designed end, one miracle being, with him, as easy to effect as another.

It is, likewise, always something which cannot be accomplished by mere human means. Now, if the Gift of Tongues was only the being enabled to speak various languages, when the speaker pleased, this would be no more

[blocks in formation]

than what might have been acquired by assiduous application; its effects would have been very circumscribed, and very greatly inferior, in every respect, to that of every one present hearing, at the same time, in his own language. Its being a miracle at all, would be generally disputed.

66

That, however, in this instance, was so far from being the case, that we are told, that as soon as the circumstance was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language." "And they were all amazed, and 'marvelled, and were in doubt, saying, What meaneth this ?”” Now here are an almost immense multitude (three thousand of them being converted during the day, we cannot well estimate them at less than twelve thousand), speaking, at least, seventeen different languages or dialects; for that number is distinctly enumerated. Peter stood up, with the eleven, and lifted up his voice, and addressed this great and mixed multitude. The eleven likewise stood up, but Peter only addressed them. He addresses them, as men of Judea, and all that dwell at Jerusalem." We had been before told that there were then dwelling at Jerusalem, devout men, out of every nation under heaven, and that it was them which came together to hear the Apostles, as soon as their having received the Gift of Tongues was noised abroad.

66

Peter then addressed himself at once to people from every nation under heaven. To what purpose would this have been, or how could the miracle appear, if only the people out of one nation at a time could understand him? That, however, evidently was not the case, since we are told, that when they had heard him, they (i. e. the people out of every nation under heaven) were pricked in their hearts, and that they who received his word were baptized; and that there were, that day, added to the disciples, three thousand souls. It does not appear that Peter spoke more than once, or that any other of the Apostles spoke. If, then, every man did not hear him speak at the same time in his own tongue wherein he was born, sixteen out of seventeen could not have been benefitted, nor could they have perceived any miraculous gift which Peter possessed; nor is it probable that he could have converted three thousand souls! These are some of the reasons which have induced me to abide by the opinion, which was, in the first instance, suggested to my mind on reading the passage in question, and which the service of this day has recalled. With this interpretation the whole seems consistent, and the effect such as might (great as it was) be expected to be produced by so powerful a cause. On the other supposition, the accounting for the effect produced is attended with great (I had almost said insurmount able) difficulties. I could enlarge both upon these difficulties, and upon the arguments to support my own opinion. I wished, however, to be as concise as possible, and, if what has been urged fail to convince, it is probable that other a longer dissertation would not have been more successful. There are Gifts of the Holy Spirit besides that of Tongues, one of which is, the leading us to the knowledge of all Truth. God grant that in this, and every other instance, we may all experience the effects of that precious gift!

Near Sheffield, May 10th, 1818.

P. G.

« السابقةمتابعة »