part17-第2章

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！



them　endeavoring　to　make　law　where　they　found　none；　and　to　submit　us

at　one　stroke　to　a　whole　system；　no　particle　of　which　has　its

foundation　in　the　common　law。　　For　we　know　that　the　common　law　is

that　system　of　law　which　was　introduced　by　the　Saxons　on　their

settlement　in　England；　and　altered　from　time　to　time　by　proper

legislative　authority　from　that　time　to　the　date　of　Magna　Charta；

which　terminates　the　period　of　the　common　law；　or　lex　non　scripta；

and　commences　that　of　the　statute　law；　or　Lex　Scripta。　　This

settlement　took　place　about　the　middle　of　the　fifth　century。　　But

Christianity　was　not　introduced　till　the　seventh　century；　the

conversion　of　the　first　christian　king　of　the　Heptarchy　having　taken

place　about　the　year　598；　and　that　of　the　last　about　686。　　Here；

then；　was　a　space　of　two　hundred　years；　during　which　the　common　law

was　in　existence；　and　Christianity　no　part　of　it。　　If　it　ever　was

adopted；　therefore；　into　the　common　law；　it　must　have　been　between

the　introduction　of　Christianity　and　the　date　of　the　Magna　Charta。

But　of　the　laws　of　this　period　we　have　a　tolerable　collection　by

Lambard　and　Wilkins；　probably　not　perfect；　but　neither　very

defective；　and　if　any　one　chooses　to　build　a　doctrine　on　any　law　of

that　period；　supposed　to　have　been　lost；　it　is　incumbent　on　him　to

prove　it　to　have　existed；　and　what　were　its　contents。　　These　were　so

far　alterations　of　the　common　law；　and　became　themselves　a　part　of

it。　　But　none　of　these　adopt　Christianity　as　a　part　of　the　common

law。　　If；　therefore；　from　the　settlement　of　the　Saxons　to　the

introduction　of　Christianity　among　them；　that　system　of　religion

could　not　be　a　part　of　the　common　law；　because　they　were　not　yet

Christians；　and　if；　having　their　laws　from　that　period　to　the　close

of　the　common　law；　we　are　all　able　to　find　among　them　no　such　act　of

adoption；　we　may　safely　affirm　（though　contradicted　by　all　the　judges

and　writers　on　earth）　that　Christianity　neither　is；　nor　ever　was　a

part　of　the　common　law。　　Another　cogent　proof　of　this　truth　is　drawn

from　the　silence　of　certain　writers　on　the　common　law。　　Bracton　gives

us　a　very　complete　and　scientific　treatise　of　the　whole　body　of　the

common　law。　　He　wrote　this　about　the　close　of　the　reign　of　Henry

III。；　a　very　few　years　after　the　date　of　the　Magna　Charta。　　We

consider　this　book　as　the　more　valuable；　as　it　was　written　about　fore

gives　us　the　former　in　its　ultimate　state。　　Bracton；　too；　was　an

ecclesiastic；　and　would　certainly　not　have　failed　to　inform　us　of　the

adoption　of　Christianity　as　a　part　of　the　common　law；　had　any　such

adoption　ever　taken　place。　　But　no　word　of　his；　which　intimates

anything　like　it；　has　ever　been　cited。　　Fleta　and　Britton；　who　wrote

in　the　succeeding　reign　（of　Edward　I。）；　are　equally　silent。　　So　also

is　Glanvil；　an　earlier　writer　than　any　of　them；　（viz。：　temp。　　H。　2；）

but　his　subject　perhaps　might　not　have　led　him　to　mention　it。

Justice　Fortescue　Aland；　who　possessed　more　Saxon　learning　than　all

the　judges　and　writers　before　mentioned　put　together；　places　this

subject　on　more　limited　ground。　　Speaking　of　the　laws　of　the　Saxon

kings；　he　says；　〃the　ten　commandments　were　made　part　of　their　laws；

and　consequently　were　_once_　part　of　the　law　of　England；　so　that　to

break　any　of　the　ten　commandments　was　then　esteemed　a　breach　of　the

common　law；　of　England；　and　why　it　is　not　so　now；　perhaps　it　may　be

difficult　to　give　a　good　reason。〃　Preface　to　Fortescue　Aland's

reports；　xvii。　　Had　he　proposed　to　state　with　more　minuteness　how

much　of　the　scriptures　had　been　made　a　part　of　the　common　law；　he

might　have　added　that　in　the　laws　of　Alfred；　where　he　found　the　ten

commandments；　two　or　three　other　chapters　of　Exodus　are　copied　almost

verbatim。　　But　the　adoption　of　a　part　proves　rather　a　rejection　of

the　rest；　as　municipal　law。　　We　might　as　well　say　that　the　Newtonian

system　of　philosophy　is　a　part　of　the　common　law；　as　that　the

Christian　religion　is。　　The　truth　is　that　Christianity　and

Newtonianism　being　reason　and　verity　itself；　in　the　opinion　of　all

but　infidels　and　Cartesians；　they　are　protected　under　the　wings　of

the　common　law　from　the　dominion　of　other　sects；　but　not　erected　into

dominion　over　them。　　An　eminent　Spanish　physician　affirmed　that　the

lancet　had　slain　more　men　than　the　sword。　　Doctor　Sangrado；　on　the

contrary；　affirmed　that　with　plentiful　bleedings；　and　draughts　of

warm　water；　every　disease　was　to　be　cured。　　The　common　law　protects

both　opinions；　but　enacts　neither　into　law。　　See　post。　879。




　　　　　　　　879。　Howard；　in　his　Contumes　Anglo…Normandes；　1。87；　notices　the

falsification　of　the　laws　of　Alfred；　by　prefixing　to　them　four

chapters　of　the　Jewish　law；　to　wit：　the　20th；　21st；　22d　and　23d

chapters　of　Exodus；　to　which　he　might　have　added　the　15th　chapter　of

the　Acts　of　the　Apostles；　v。　23；　and　precepts　from　other　parts　of　the

scripture。　　These　he　calls　a　_hors　d'oeuvre_　of　some　pious　copyist。

This　awkward　monkish　fabrication　makes　the　preface　to　Alfred's

genuine　laws　stand　in　the　body　of　the　work；　and　the　very　words　of

Alfred　himself　prove　the　fraud；　for　he　declares；　in　that　preface；

that　he　has　collected　these　laws　from　those　of　Ina；　of　Offa；

Aethelbert　and　his　ancestors；　saying　nothing　of　any　of　them　being

taken　from　the　Scriptures。　　It　is　still　more　certainly　proved　by　the

inconsistencies　it　occasions。　　For　example；　the　Jewish　legislator

Exodus　xxi。　12；　13；　14；　（copied　by　the　Pseudo　Alfred　＇symbol　omitted＇

13；）　makes　murder；　with　the　Jews；　death。　　But　Alfred　himself；　Le。

xxvi。；　punishes　it　by　a　fine　only；　called　a　Weregild；　proportioned　to

the　condition　of　the　person　killed。　　It　is　remarkable　that　Hume

（append。　1　to　his　History）　examining　this　article　of　the　laws　of

Alfred；　without　perceiving　the　fraud；　puzzles　himself　with　accounting

for　the　inconsistency　it　had　introduced。　　To　strike　a　pregnant　woman

so　that　she　die　is　death　by　Exodus；　xxi。　22；　23；　and　Pseud。　Alfr。　18；

but　by　the　laws　of　Alfred　ix。；　pays　a　Weregild　for　both　woman　and

child。　　To　smite　out　an　eye；　or　a　tooth；　Exod。　xxi。　24…27。　Pseud。

Alfr。　19；　20；　if　of　a　servant　by　his　master；　is　freedom　to　the

servant；　in　every　other　case　retaliation。　　But　by　Alfr。　Le。　xl。　a

fixed　indemnification　is　paid。　　Theft　of　an　ox；　or　a　sheep；　by　the

Jewish　law；　Exod。　xxii。　1；　was　repaid　five…fold　for　the　ox　and

four…fold　for　the　sheep；　by　the　Pseudograph　24；　the　ox　double；　the

sheep　four…fold；　but　by　Alfred　Le。　xvi。；　he　who　stole　a　cow　and　a

calf　was　to　repay　the　worth　of　the　cow　and　401　for　the　calf。　　Goring

by　an　ox　was　the　death　of　the　ox；　and　the　flesh　not　to　be　eaten。

Exod。　xxi。　28。　Pseud。　Alfr。　21　by　Alfred　Le。　xxiv。；　the　wounded

person　had　the　ox。　　The　Pseudograph　makes　municipal　laws　of　the　ten

commandments；　1…10；　regulates　concubinage；　12；　makes　it　death　to

strike　or　to　curse　father　or　mother；　14；　15；　gives　an　eye　for　an　eye；

tooth　for　a　tooth；　hand　for　hand；　foot　for　foot；　burning　for　burning；

wound　for　wound；　strife　for　strife；　19；　sells　the　thief　to　repay　his

theft；　24；　obliges　the　fornicator　to　marry　the　woman　he　has　lain

with；　29；　forbids　interest　on　money；　35；　makes　the　laws　of　bailment；

28；　very　different　from　what　Lord　Holt　delivers　in　Coggs　_v_。

Bernard；　ante　92；　and　what　Sir　William　Jones　tells　us　they　were；　and

punishes　witchcraft　with　death；　30；　which　Sir　Matthew　Hale；　1　H。　P。

C。　B。　1；　ch。　33；　declares　was　not　a　felony　before　the　Stat。　1；　Jac。

12。　　It　was　under　that　statute；　and　not　this　forgery；　that　he　hung

Rose　Cullendar　and　Amy　Duny；　16　Car。　　2；　（1662；）　on　whose　trial　he

declared　〃that　there　were　such　creatures　as　witches　he　made　no　doubt

at　all；　for　first　the　Scripture　had　affirmed　so　much；　secondly　the

wisdom　of　all　nations　had　provided　laws　against　such　persons；　and

such　hath　been　the　judgment　of　this　kingdom；　as　appears　by　that　act

of　Parliament　which　hath　provided　punishment　proportionable　to　the

quality　of　the　offence。〃　And　we　must　certainly　allow　greater　weight

to　th