try of the west, which was once a Roman province. Among the Romans, witnesses were heard publicly in presence of the accused, who might reply to them, and examine them himself, or through an advocate. This practice was noble and frank; it breathed of Roman magnanimity.

In France, in many parts of Germany, everything is done in secret. This practice, established under Francis I. was authorised by the commissioners who, in 1670, drew up the ordinance of Louis XIV. A mere mistake was the cause of it.

It was imagined on reading the code De Testibus, that the words, Testes intrare judicii secretum, signified that witnesses were examined in secret. But secretum here signifies the closet of the judge. Intrare secretum, to express speaking in secret, would not be Latin. This part of our jurisprudence was occasioned by a solecism. Witnesses were usually persons of the lowest class, and whom the judge, when closeted with them, might induce to say whatever he wished. These witnesses are examined a second time, always in secret, which is called re-examination; and if, after re-examination, they retract their depositions, or vary them in essential circumstances, they are punished as false witnesses. Thus, when an upright man of weak understanding, and unused to express his ideas, is conscious that he has stated either too much or too little,—that he has misunderstood the judge, or that the judge has misunderstood him,-and revokes, in the spirit of justice, what he had advanced through incaution, he is punished as a felon. He is in this manner often compelled to persevere in false testimony, from the actual dread of being treated as a false witness.

The person accused exposes himself by flight to condemnation, whether the crime has been proved or not. Some jurisconsults, indeed, have wisely held, that the contumacious person ought not to be condemned, unless the crime were clearly established; but other lawyers have been of a contrary opinion: they have boldly affirmed that the flight of the accused was a proof of the crime; that the contempt which he shewed for jus

tice, by refusing to appear, merited the same chastisement as would have followed his conviction. Thus, according to the sect of lawyers which the judge may have embraced, an innocent man will be acquitted or condemned.

It is a great abuse in jurisprudence, that people often assume as law the reveries and errors, sometimes cruel ones, of men destitute of all authority, who have laid down their own opinions as laws.

In the reign of Louis XIV. two edicts were published in France, which apply equally to the whole kingdom. In the first, which refers to civil causes, the judges are forbidden to condemn in any suit, on default, when the demand is not proved; but in the second, which regulates criminal proceedings, it is not laid down that, in the absence of proof, the accused shall be acquitted. Singular circumstance! The law pronounces, that a man proceeded against for a sum of money shall not be condemned, on default, unless the debt be proved; but, in cases affecting life, the profession are divided with respect to condemning a person for contumacy when the crime is not proved; and the law does not solve the difficulty.

Example taken from the Condemnation of a whole Family.

The following is an account of what happened to this unfortunate family, at the time when the mad fraternities of pretended penitents, in white robes and masks, had erected, in one of the principal churches of Toulouse, a superb monument to a young protestant, who had destroyed himself, but who they pretended had been murdered by his father and mother, for having abjured the reformed religion; at the time, when the whole family of this protestant, then revered as a martyr, were in irons, and a whole population, intoxicated by a superstition equally senseless and cruel, awaited, with devout impatience, the delight of seeing five or six persons of unblemished integrity expire on the rack or at the stake. At this dreadful period there resided Castres near** a respectable man, of the protestant religion, of the name of Sirven,

VOL. II.

2 G

also

4

who exercised in that province the profession of a feudist. This man had three daughters. A woman who superintended the household of the bishop of Castres, proposed to bring to him Sirven's second daughter, called Elizabeth, in order to make her a catholic, apostolical and Roman. She is in fact

brought. She is by him secluded with the female jesuits, denominated the "lady teachers," or the "black ladies." They instruct her in what they know; they find her capacity weak, and impose upon her penances in order to inculcate doctrines which, with gentleness, she might have been taught. She becomes imbecile; the black ladies expel her; she returns to her parents; her mother, on making her change her linen, perceives that her person is covered with contusions; her imbecility increases; she becomes melancholy mad; she escapes one day from the house, while her father is some miles distant, publicly occupied in his business, at the seat of a neighbouring nobleman. In short, twenty days after the flight of Elizabeth, some children find her drowned in a well, on the fourth of January, 1761.

This was precisely the time when they were preparing to break Calas on the wheel at Toulouse. The word "parricide," and what is worse, "huguenot," flies from mouth to mouth throughout the province. It was not doubted that Sirven, his wife, and his two daughters, had drowned the third, on a principle of religion.

It was the universal opinion, that the protestant religion positively required fathers and mothers to destroy such of their children as might wish to become catholics. This opinion had taken such deep root in the minds even of magistrates themselves, hurried on unfortunately by the public clamour, that the council and church of Geneva were obliged to contradict the fatal error, and to send to the parliament of Toulouse an attestation upon oath, that not only did protestants not destroy their children, but that they were left masters of their whole property when they quitted their sect for another. It is known that, notwithstanding this attestation, Calas was broken on the wheel.

A country magistrate of the name of Londes, assisted by graduates as sagacious as himself, became eager to make every preparation for following up the example which had been furnished at Toulouse. A village doctor, equally enlightened with the magistrate, boldly affirmed, on inspecting the body after the expiration of eighteen days, that the young woman had been strangled, and afterwards thrown into the well. On this deposition, the magistrate issued a warrant to apprehend the father, mother, and the two daughters. The family, justly terrified at the catastrophe of Calas, and agreeably to the advice of their friends, betook themselves instantly to flight; they travelled amidst snow during a rigorous winter, and, toiling over mountain after mountain, at length arrived at those of Switzerland. The daughter, who was married and pregnant, was prematurely delivered amidst surrounding ice.

The first intelligence this family received, after reaching a place of safety, was, that the father and mother were condemned to be hanged; the two daughters to remain under the gallows during the execution of their mother, and to be reconducted by the executioner out of the territory, under pain of being hanged if they returned. Such is the lesson given to contumacy!

This judgment was equally absurd and abominable. If the father, in concert with his wife, had strangled his daughter, he ought to have been broken on the wheel, like Calas, and the mother to have been burnt (at least after having been strangled), because the practice of breaking women on the wheel is not yet the custom in the country of this judge. To limit the punishment to hanging in such a case, was an acknowledgment that the crime was not proved, and that in the doubt the halter was adopted to compromise, for want of evidence. This sentence was equally repugnant to law and reason. The mother died of a broken heart, and the whole family, their property having been confiscated, would have perished through want, unless they had met with assistance.

We stop here, to enquire whether there be any law

and any reason that can justify such a sentence? We ask the judge, "What madness has urged you to condemn a father and a mother?" "It was because they fled," he replies. "Miserable wretch! would you have had them remain to glut your insensate fury? Of what consequence could it be, whether they appeared in chains to plead before you, or whether in a distant land they lifted up their hands in appeal to heaven against you? Could you not see the truth, which ought to have struck you, as well during their absence? Could you not see, that the father was a league distant from his daughter, in the midst of twenty persons, when the unfortunate young woman withdrew from her mother's protection? Could you be ignorant, that the whole family were in search of her for twenty days and nights?" To this you answer by the words, Contumacy, contumacy. What! because a man is absent therefore must he be condemned to be hanged, though his innocence be manifest? It is the jurisprudence of a fool and a monster. And the life, the property, and the honour of citizens are to depend upon this code of Iroquois !

The Sirven family for more than eight years dragged on their misfortunes, far from their native country. At length, the sanguinary superstition which disgraced Languedoc having been somewhat mitigated, and men's minds becoming more enlightened, those who had befriended the Sirvens during their exile, advised them to return and demand justice from the parliament of Toulouse itself, now that the blood of Calas no longer smoked, and many repented of having ever shed it. The Sirvens were justified.

Erudimini, qui judicatis terram.

Be instructed, ye judges of the earth.

CROMWELL.

SECTION I.

CROMWELL is described as a man who was an impostor all his life. I can scarcely believe it. I conceive, that he was first an enthusiast, and that he after