下载辰思小说免费APP
InthereignofKingPepin，thecustomsthenestablishedhadnotthesameforceasthelaws；butitwasnotlongbeforethelawsgavewaytothecustoms。Andasnewregulationsaregenerallyremediesthatimplyapresentevil，itmaywellbeimaginedthatasearlyasPepin’stime，theybegantopreferthecustomstotheestablishedlaws。
WhathasbeensaidsufficientlyexplainsthemannerinwhichtheRomanlawbegansoveryearlytobecometerritorial，asmaybeseenintheedictofPistes；andhowtheGothiclawcontinuedstillinforce，asappearsbythesynodofTroyesabove—mentioned。[66]TheRomanhadbecomethegeneralpersonallaw，andtheGothictheparticularpersonallaw；
consequentlytheRomanlawwasterritorial。Buthowcameit，somewillask，thatthepersonallawsoftheBarbariansfelleverywhereintodisuse，whiletheRomanlawwascontinuedasaterritorialinstitutionintheVisigothandBurgundianprovinces？IanswerthateventheRomanlawhadverynearlythesamefateastheotherpersonalinstitutions；
otherwisewewouldstillhavetheTheodosiancodeinthoseprovinceswheretheRomanlawwasterritorial，whereaswehavetheinstitutesofJustinian。ThoseprovincesretainedscarcelyanythingmorethanthenameofthecountryundertheRoman，orwrittenlaw，thanthenaturalaffectionwhichpeoplehavefortheirowninstitutions，especiallywhentheyconsiderthemasprivileges，andafewregulationsoftheRomanlawwhichwerenotyetforgotten。Thiswas，however，sufficienttoproducesuchaneffectthat，whenJustinian’scompilationappeared，itwasreceivedintheprovincesoftheGothicandBurgundiandemesneasawrittenlaw，whereasitwasadmittedonlyaswrittenreasonintheancientdemesneoftheFranks。
13。DifferencebetweentheSaliclaw，orthatoftheSalianFranks，andthatoftheRipuarianFranksandotherbarbarousNations。TheSaliclawdidnotallowofthecustomofnegativeproofs；thatis，ifapersonbroughtademandorchargeagainstanother，hewasobligedbytheSaliclawtoproveit，anditwasnotsufficientforthesecondtodenyit，whichisagreeabletothelawsofalmostallnations。
ThelawoftheRipuarianFrankshadquiteadifferentspirit；[67]itwascontentedwithnegativeproofs，andtheperson）againstwhomademandoraccusationwasbrought，mightclearhimself，inmostcases，byswearing，inconjunctionwithacertainnumberofwitnesses，thathehadnotcommittedthecrimelaidtohischarge。Thenumberofwitnesseswhowereobligedtoswear[68]increasedinproportiontotheimportanceoftheaffair；sometimesitamountedtoseventy—two。[69]ThelawsoftheAlemans，Bavarians，Thuringians，Frisians，Saxons，Lombards，andBurgundianswereformedonthesameplanasthoseoftheRipuarian。
IobservedthattheSaliclawdidnotallowofnegativeproofs。Therewasonecase，however，inwhichtheywereallowed：[70]buteventhentheywerenotadmittedalone，andwithouttheconcurrenceofpositiveproofs。Theplaintiffcausedwitnessestobeheard，[71]inordertogroundhisaction，thedefendantproducedalsowitnessesonhisside，andthejudgewastocomeatthetruthbycomparingthosetestimonies。[72]ThispracticewasvastlydifferentfromthatoftheRipuarian，andotherbarbarouslaws，whereitwascustomaryforthepartyaccusedtoclearhimselfbyswearinghewasnotguilty，andbymakinghisrelativesalsoswearthathehadtoldthetruth。Theselawscouldbesuitableonlytoapeopleremarkablefortheirnaturalsimplicityandcandour；weshallseepresentlythatthelegislatorswereobligedtotakepropermethodstopreventtheirbeingabused。
14。AnotherDifference。TheSaliclawdidnotadmitofthetrialbycombat，thoughithadbeenreceivedbythelawsoftheRipuarians[73]
andofalmostallthebarbarousnations。[74]Tomeitseemsthatthelawofcombatwasanaturalconsequenceandaremedyofthelawwhichestablishednegativeproofs。Whenanactionwasbrought，anditappearedthatthedefendantwasgoingtoeludeitbyanoath，whatotherremedywaslefttoamilitaryman，[75]whosawhimselfuponthepointofbeingconfounded，thantodemandsatisfactionfortheinjurydonetohim：andevenfortheattemptofperjury？TheSaliclaw，whichdidnotallowthecustomofnegativeproofs，neitheradmittednorhadanyneedofthetrialbycombat；butthelawsoftheRipuarians[76]andoftheotherbarbarousnations[77]whohadadoptedthepracticeofnegativeproofs，wereobligedtoestablishthetrialbycombat。
WhoeverwillpleasetoexaminethetwofamousregulationsofGundebald，KingofBurgundy，concerningthissubjectwillfindtheyarederivedfromtheverynatureofthething。[78]Itwasnecessary，accordingtothelanguageoftheBarbarianlaws，torescuetheoathoutofthehandsofapersonwhowasgoingtoabuseit。
AmongtheLombards，thelawofRotharisadmitsofcasesinwhichamanwhohadmadehisdefencebyoathshouldnotbesufferedtoundergothehardshipofaduel。Thiscustomspreaditselffurther：[79]weshallpresentlyseethemischiefsthatarosefromit，andhowtheywereobligedtoreturntotheancientpractice。
15。AReflection。IdonotpretendtodenythatinthechangesmadeinthecodeoftheBarbarianlaws，intheregulationsaddedtothatcode，andinthebodyoftheCapitularies，itispossibletofindsomepassageswherethetrialbycombatisnotaconsequenceofthenegativeproof。Particularcircumstancesmight，inthecourseofmanyages，giverisetoparticularlaws。IspeakonlyofthegeneralspiritofthelawsoftheGermans，oftheirnatureandorigin；Ispeakoftheancientcustomsofthosepeoplethatwereeitherhintedatorestablishedbythoselaws；andthisistheonlymatterinquestion。
16。OftheOrdealorTrialbyboilingWater，establishedbytheSalicLaw。TheSaliclaw[80]allowedoftheordeal，ortrialbyboilingwater；
andasthistrialwasexcessivelycruel，thelawfoundanexpedienttosoftenitsrigour。[81]Itpermittedtheperson，whohadbeensummonedtomakethetrialwithboilingwater，toransomhishand，withtheconsentoftheadverseparty。Theaccuser，foraparticularsumdeterminedbythelaw，mightbesatisfiedwiththeoathofafewwitnesses，declaringthattheaccusedhadnotcommittedthecrime。Thiswasaparticularcase，inwhichtheSaliclawadmittedofthenegativeproof。
Thistrialwasathingprivatelyagreedupon，whichthelawpermittedonly，butdidnotordain。Thelawgaveaparticularindemnitytotheaccuser，whowouldallowtheaccusedtomakehisdefencebyanegativeproof：theplaintiffwasatlibertytobesatisfiedwiththeoathofthedefendant，ashewasatlibertytoforgivehimtheinjury。
Thelawcontrivedamiddlecourse，[82]thatbeforesentencepassed，bothparties，theonethroughfearofaterribletrial，theotherforthesakeofasmallindemnity，shouldterminatetheirdisputes，andputanendtotheiranimosities。Itisplain，thatwhenoncethisnegativeproofwascompleted，nothingmorewasrequisite；and，therefore，thatthepracticeoflegalduelscouldnotbeaconsequenceofthisparticularregulationoftheSaliclaw。
17。ParticularNotionsofourAncestors。Itisastonishingthatourancestorsshouldthusrestthehonour，fortuneandlifeofthesubject，onthingsthatdependedlessonreasonthanonhazard，andthattheyshouldincessantlymakeuseofproofsincapableofconvicting，andthathadnomannerofconnectioneitherwithinnocenceorguilt。
TheGermans，whohadneverbeensubdued，[83]enjoyedanexcessiveindependence。Differentfamilieswagedwarwitheachother[84]toobtainsatisfactionformurders，robberiesoraffronts。Thiscustomwasmoderatedbysubjectingthesehostilitiestorules；itwasordainedthattheyshouldbenolongercommittedbutbythedirectionandundertheeyeofthemagistrate。[85]Thiswasfarpreferabletoagenerallicenceofannoyingeachother。
AstheTurksintheircivilwarslookuponthefirstvictoryasadecisionofheaveninfavourofthevictor，sotheinhabitantsofGermanyintheirprivatequarrelsconsideredtheeventofacombatasadecreeofProvidence，everattentivetopunishthecriminalortheusurper。
TacitusinformsusthatwhenoneGermannationintendedtodeclarewaragainstanother，theylookedoutforaprisonerwhowastofightwithoneoftheirpeople，andbytheeventtheyjudgedofthesuccessofthewar。Anationwhobelievedthatpublicquarrelscouldbedeterminedbyasinglecombatmightverywellthinkthatitwasproperalsofordecidingthedisputesofindividuals。
Gundebald，KingofBurgundy，gavethegreatestsanctiontothecustomoflegalduels。[86]Thereasonheassignsforthislawismentionedinhisedict，"Itis，"sayshe，"inordertopreventoursubjectsfromattestingbyoathwhatisuncertain，andperjuringthemselvesaboutwhatiscertain。"Thus，whiletheclergydeclaredthatanimpiouslawwhichpermittedcombats，[87]theBurgundianKingslookeduponthatasasacrilegiouslawwhichauthorizedthetakingofanoath。
Thetrialbycombathadsomereasonforit，foundedonexperience。Inamilitarynation，cowardicesupposesothervices；itisanargumentofaperson’shavingdeviatedfromtheprinciplesofhiseducation，ofhisbeinginsensibleofhonour，andofhavingrefusedtobedirectedbythosemaximswhichgovernothermen；itshowsthatheneitherfearstheircontempt，norsetsanyvalueupontheiresteem。Menofanytolerableextractionseldomwanteitherthedexterityrequisitetoco—operatewithstrength，orthestrengthnecessarytoconcurwithcourage；forastheysetavalueuponhonour，theyarepractisedinmatterswithoutwhic
