of his nation or sovereign on his mansion. After his credentials have been received, he makes formal visits to the other ambassadors, to be recognised by them as such. From the moment that a minister enters the territory of the sovereign to whom he is sent, his person is held sacred and inviolable, and he acquires important privileges. To these belongs, first of all, his freedom from territorial restrictions; that is, he is not regarded as an inhabitant of the country; but his person, suite, house, equipage, &c. are considered as never having left the country to which he belongs, and as being without the jurisdiction of that in which he actually resides. From this follows the freedom of foreign ministers from the civil and criminal law; and the same applies to their suite; and all property belonging to him as minister is free from all taxes, &c. No common police-officer, tax-gatherer, or other public servant can enter his hotel and make inquisition, as in the house of a private citizen. One of the especial privileges of ambassadors is that of worshipping according to the forms of their own religion in countries where their religion is not tolerated. A minister often voluntarily leaves a court, without being recalled, when he thinks he suffers personal injuries, contrary to the laws of nations. There are cases, however, in which a minister is compelled to leave a court, when it is termed a removal. In general, an embassy is considered as ended from the moment when the minister shows his letters of recall, or receives his passports for his journey home. When these are furnished him, he must leave the country; but his person remains inviolable even in case of war, and he is allowed to retire unmolested. The same inviolability of person is enjoyed in the other European states, although only in time of peace, by couriers and expresses, as also by persons who, without any public character as envoys, are intrusted by their governments with the transaction of affairs of importance, and requiring secrecy and despatch; but these are not allowed to assume the state of a minister, and, in their relations to other citizens, are regarded as private persons merely.' Forces. Every government employs force in the execution of its orders, or in defence of its rights. This force is in two departments, civil and military. The civil force is comprehended in constables and other functionaries usually employed in the execution of legal objects, in the maintenance of public peace, and in the enforcement of municipal regulations. Military force is quite a different thing: it is an organisation of men armed with weapons capable of inflicting wounds and death. In forces of this latter kind are included an army and a navy. Regularly-formed armies are of great antiquity. All nations, from the beginning of the world, appear to have required, or at all events used, military forces; in other words, they maintained and defended themselves by violence, and by violence they conquered each other. Hence war, or a period of fighting, may be said to have had an almost unbroken existence from the earliest dawn of history. In the present day, with all its enlightenment, every civilised community less or more feels itself obliged to maintain an army. In some countries the regular or standing army is aided by an additional force, in the form of a militia or national guard, which is an armed citizenship. A regular army embraces three departments-infantry, or foot soldiers, cavalry, or horse soldiers, and artillery, or ordnance. Along with a royal navy-men fighting in ships-the cost of the military array in the United Kingdom is about £18,000,000 annually, and occupies the services of nearly 300,000 men. How far this enormous force could be reduced, consistently with the preservation of the empire in all its parts, is one of the most important questions of the day. The army is governed by rigorous laws of its own, so as to maintain high military discipline, and bring the whole body into an obedience resembling that of a machine. An army is immediately governed by | a commander-in-chief, generals of division, and subordinate officers. A regiment, which may consist of 1000 men, is under the charge of a colonel and lieutenantcolonel; next in subordination is a major, a captain, a lieutenant, and ensign. Beneath are the non-commissioned officers, including sergeants and corporals. Every regiment is dressed in a particular uniform; and several of them differ also in the style and weight of their accoutrements. In taking the field against an enemy, an army almost always requires to consist of a due proportion of foot, horse, and artillery; for each assists the other. The general use of the cavalry is to dash in and cut up the parts of a regiment already broken and dismayed by the fire of artillery. royal navy consists of vessels of various sizes and construction, equipped and commanded as already explained under MARITIME CONVEYANCE, in Volume I. In conclusion, it may be remarked that in modern warfare the object is less to kill than disperse and terrify into subjection; and therefore, among civilised nations, mercy is always shown when asked. HERALDRY-RANKS-TITLES. The Heraldry is the science, so called, of figurative representations, designed as emblematic of rank and honourable achievements. The origin of the word herald is uncertain; the most plausible conjecture is, that it is from the German heer, an army, and ald, a servantthe servant or messenger of an army. This derivation would at least pretty well agree with the nature of the office of herald, which is that of messenger, or envoy, or crier, of a royal personage. Among the nations of antiquity, it was customary for armies to be distinguished by particular standards, and warriors by emblematic devices on their shields. This was a rudimentary kind of heraldry. The cultivation of such devices, however, did not attain a settled and regular form, or rise to the dignity of a science, till the ages which succeeded to the dismemberment of the Roman Empire. Europe was now intruded on, and taken possession of, by conquering hordes, led by military chieftains. This was the commencement of the feudal system. Each leader or king gave portions of the conquered lands to his captains or nobles, on condition that they should support him in war. These nobles, again, imparted lesser shares of the lands on the like condition; and thus, down and down, the whole of society consisted of military retainers, depending ultimately on the sovereign, who was deemed the great fountain of honour, the source of all authority and distinction. In France, Germany, Italy, England, Scotland, and some other countries, the same kind of feudal tenure prevailed. Feudal usages led to heraldry. Everywhere there was fighting. Armies required standards; and knights assumed devices emblematic of their achievements. The parties who regulated these insignia were the royal heralds; and hence the term heraldry. As heralds travelled from country to country with armies, or with the kings their masters, they gradually formed a fraternity, who took pride in fixing an exact and uniform code of emblems in reference to particular circumstances. As feudalism advanced, and became refined, so did heraldry; and it may be said to have attained its highest glories among the Anglo-Normans shortly after the Conquest. All the devices of heraldry bear a reference to weapons of war, or arms; and as the shield was the subject of emblazonment in actual combat, so is it the chief object of heraldic illustration. A complete set of devices is called a coat of arms, which we shall describe, commencing with the shield. A shield, in heraldry, is called an escutcheon (Lat. scutum), which serves as a field whereon to portray the symbolic charges or bearings. The dignity of these charges is indicated by the situation in which they are placed. As the head of a man is supposed to be more dignified than his feet, so is the upper central B A C F part of a shield more dignified than the parts beneath. Azure. Vert. Purpre. Sable. Ermine. Vair. Honourable Ordinaries are the next kind of markings on shields. They resemble belts drawn across, or other forms projected on the escutcheons; and are called the chief, the pale, the bend, the bend sinister, the chevron, the pile, the cross, and the saltier. We present a figure of the bend-which extends from the dexter chief to the sinister base, of the chevron, and of the cross : Bend. Chevron. Cross. Lesser or sub-ordinaries consist of double or triple straight lines, denominated bendlets, pallets, bars, and chevronels. Another kind of markings in the escutcheon are lozenges, chequered crossings, &c. Next we have combinations of the preceding figures, one surmounting or blended with the other. Such combinations usually refer to a union of family or national emblems. The unionjack or ensign of the United Kingdom is an example. For England it is argent, or cross gules; for Scotland, azure, or saltier argent; and for Ireland, argent, or saltier gules. Heralds describe or emblazon the combinations thus:- Azure, the crosses saltier of St Andrew and St Patrick quarterly per saltier, counterchanged argent and gules; the latter fimbrated of the second; surmounted by the cross of St George of the Third, fimbrated as the saltier.' The next step in heraldry is putting animals, or parts of animals, on escutcheons, in order to convey an allegorical meaning. The attitudes of the animals also form distinct significations. When a lion is rearing on its hind-legs with its face in profile, it is said to be rampant. If the face is turned frontways, it is denominated guardant; if the head be turned backwards, it is reguardant. When the animal is walking, it is said to be passant; but if the face be frontways, it is denominated passant guardant. The lion borne in the arms of Scotland is thus emblazoned :—' Or, a lion rampant gules;' that is, a red lion rearing on a golden shield. 6 'The ruddy lion rampt in gold.' In the royal arms of England are seen 'gules, three Over the shield, in heraldry, a mantle, or species of drapery, in wavy folds, is usually thrown. This is a decoration, having reference to the mantle of a knight in the field of battle: the more curled and contorted that the decoration appears, so is it implied that the mantle was torn and mutilated in the strife of arms. Above the mantle is depicted the crest. Crests were originally cognisances worn on the top of the helmet, in order to distinguish a warrior in the confusion of a battle. Sprigs of certain plants, feathers, representa Next come the partitions. These are single lines tions of birds, heads, and other parts of animals, &c. dividing the escutcheon in a variety of ways, each, like everything else, indicative of a quality in the bearer. By these lines the escutcheon is said to be party per pale, per bend, per fess, per chevron, per pile, per cross, or per saltier. The annexed figure imports party per pale. A similar line horizontally across the centre indicates party per fess. There are likewise angular lines like the teeth of a Sw, and curved and notched lines, each with its distinct name, as embattled, indented, enarched, engrailed, inrected, wavy, nebuly, dancette, raguled, dore-tailed, radiant, &c. The accompanying figure represents party per bend embattled. were used as crests. The crest of the Earls of Warwick was a muzzled and chained bear, holding a ragged staff, still well known. In heraldry, the figure forming the crest usually rests on a wreath, or, more properly, a portion of what originally was a wreath. Wreaths of twisted ribbon, laurel, &c. were bestowed by ladies on favourite knights, and borne by them on their helmets; hence the emblematic wreath in heraldry. Figures of coronets are employed to support the crests of noble families. The coronets differ in shape and in richness of decoration, according to the quality of the bearer. The crown of a sovereign, with its arches centering in a point at the top, is well known. The coronet of a duke has a row of oak leaves in gold round the fillet or band; that of a marquis has pearls placed alternately with the leaves; that of an earl has points raised between the leaves, with pearls on the top of the points; that of a viscount has only pearls closely set; and that | quis, equivalent to margrave in Germany, was origi of a baron has a lesser number of pearls, with wider intervals between. It was the practice at tournaments for the pages and esquires of knights to guard their shields, and for this purpose they dressed themselves in a fantastic manneras griffins, and other animals, &c. From this originated the custom in heraldry of giving supporters to escutcheons. The supporters of the royal arms of Scotland are two unicorns; those of the British royal arms are a lion and a unicorn. Supporters are borne only by royal or noble houses. Every coat of arms has a motto inscribed on a roll of ribbon. Mottoes originated in the war-cries of knights, also in exclamations made on particular occasions. They are for the most part in Latin or French. The motto for the British royal arms is' Dieu et mon Droit'-' God and my right.' A hatchment is a species of funeral escutcheon, suspended in front of a house to mark the decease of one of its inmates. These escutcheons are always drawn up with heraldic precision, so as to indicate, by the form and accompaniments of the field and the colour of the ground of the hatchment, the sex, position, and rank of the deceased. Thus, if the death be of a male, the right side of the board is painted black; if of a female, the left-and so on. In modern times, in England, coats of arms are granted only by the sovereign, through the agency of the Herald's College; in Scotland, by the Lord Lyon, king-at-arms, or his officers; and in either case, only on cause shown, and on payment of a fee. Latterly, the science has so much degenerated in the hands of the above functionaries, that little discrimination is exercised in dispensing either crests or escutcheons; what is worse, figures of ordinary objects are sometimes allowed to be displayed, having reference to the profession of the bearer. This is a perversion of heraldry, which is the science of emblems, not the blazonry of vulgar representations. In Britain, the use of armorial bearings in any form renders the wearer liable to a special annual taxation. Ranks-Titles. In Great Britain, society is composed of three estates, called the three estates of the realm-1, The sovereign; 2, The nobility or peerage; 3, The commons or people. This division, which originated under feudalism, gives a character to British manners and institutions, and admits of a considerable variety in rank and title. To the sovereign, whether king or queen, is given the title of Majesty-as, His Majesty the King. This epithet is derived from the ancient Romans, by whom it was applied first to the whole people in a collective sense, and afterwards to the consuls and dictators. It was not used in modern Europe till the treaty of Cambray, 1526, when it was given to the Emperor Charles V. Since that period, it has been applied to nearly all European monarchs. By the pope, the title of Catholic Majesty was given to the king of Spain; Apostolic Majesty to the king of Hungary; Most Christian Majesty to the king of France; and Most Faithful Majesty to the king of Portugal. Previous to the adoption of the term Majesty in England, the title of Highness, or His Grace, was taken by the monarchs. To princes is now usually given the title of Highness, or Royal Highness. The nobility consists of five degrees-dukes, marquises, earls, viscounts, and barons. The title of duke is from the Latin dux, a leader, and signifies the leader of an army. It is as ancient as the early German tribes previous to Charlemagne. Of old, dukes were set over provinces or districts to regulate the military affairs, as lieutenants of the sovereign. Under the German empire, the dignity and power of the dukes became hereditary. In England, the first hereditary duke was the Black Prince, created by his father Edward III., in 1336. The rank and title of duke have long since been disconnected with office. To dukes is now given the title of His Grace. Marquis is the next lowest rank. The title of mar nally given to those officers whose duty it was to protect the frontiers or marches of the kingdom. It has long been only honorary. To marquises is given the title of Most Noble. Earl is the next degree of nobility. The title is from the old Saxon word ethel, or ear-ethel, (gentle and noble), abbreviated to ear-el or earl. It was the duty of an earl to exercise civil, and also military jurisdiction over the district committed to his charge; and as count is an equivalent term for earl, the districts superintended by the earls came to be called counties. To an earl is given the title of Right Honourable, and he is addressed as His Lordship. Viscounts were the earl's deputies-vice comes in Latin. To a viscount is also given the title of Right Honourable, and he is addressed as His Lordship. The office of earls and viscounts has long since passed into the hands of lord lieutenants and sheriffs. Barons occupy the lowest degree of rank among the nobility. The title of baron implies manly power, and after the Norman Conquest, was given to possessors of domains held of the sovereignty by feudal tenure: these domains were called baronies. A baron has the title of Right Honourable, and he is usually spoken of as a Lord. The dignity of baron or lord is now given irrespective of territorial holdings. Among the commons of the United Kingdom are likewise degrees of rank-baronets, knights, esquires, and the people at large. The title of baronet was created by James I. in 1611; the design of the king having been to institute an inferior order of nobility. No gentleman was admitted to the rank of baronet without becoming bound to maintain thirty foot soldiers in Ireland for the space of three years, after the rate of eightpence sterling of money of England by the day.' It was by this assistance that James was able to effect the plantation of Ulster with English and Scotch settlers. A similar order of baronets was projected by James for Scotland, called the Nova Scotia baronets; his design being, to reclaim the province of Nova Scotia with the money they paid for the dignity. This order of baronets, however, was not instituted till 1625 by Charles I. Baronets, as in the case of the nobility, are now created at the pleasure of the sovereign, and their rank is hereditary. There are, nevertheless, differences in the terins in which these honours are held; sometimes the patent creating a nobleman or baronet confines the honours to heirs male direct, and sometimes allows their transmission to heirs in collateral branches, through heirs female. A baronet places the prefix of sir to his name; his wife is legally styled Dame, but in ordinary speech she is called Lady. Knighthood was a military distinction of the middle ages, conferred only on persons of honour, truth, and fidelity. Afterwards, different degrees of knighthood were created. In the present day, knighthood is an honour bestowed on civilians or others, in compliment, as is understood, for some distinguished service in literature, arts, or arms. It is not hereditary. A knight has the prefix of sir to his name. The title of esquire was originally given to the shield-bearers of knightsyoung candidates for the honour of knighthood. It is now so generally assumed, as to have pretty nearly lost all value as an honourable distinctive appellation. Master, or its contraction Mr, is the title given by courtesy to all persons whatsoever of an ordinary standing. Master is from the French maître, which is from the Latin magister. Mistress or Mrs is from the French maitresse. Miss, applied to an unmarried woman, is only a contraction of mistress, which used to be applied to young unmarried women as late as the beginning of the eighteenth century. In England, with the advancement of intelligence, we may expect a gradual disuse of titles. At present, however, they do not appear to be on the decline; and what is more remarkable, there seems to be a strong love of titles, and even of heraldic insignia, among the citizens of the North American republic. How deeply are such fancies imbedded in human nature! HISTORY AND NATURE OF LAWS. LAW may be defined as a system of regulations adopted | in social communities for the general advantage, and on that account binding upon all the individuals constituting a community. Such regulations being absolutely essential to the existence of a social state, we may safely infer, that as soon as any portion of mankind advanced into that state, law began to exist. Its origin, being thus early, is necessarily obscure: we know extremely little of its history in any of the nations of antiquity besides Greece and Rome. In Grecian history we find more than one well-known code of laws; but so limited and simple was their operation, and so little are they adapted to the wants of a complicated state of society, that they are to be looked upon rather as municipal regulations for the temporary government of a small knot of men, than as systems from which any additional hints are to be obtained to aid modern jurisprudence. It does not appear to have been in Greece-the source, as it was, of philosophy, literature, and art-that useful laws, applicable to the business of life, had their origin. The Phoenicians, of whose history and institutions we unfortunately know so little, seem to have been among the first to establish a general system of mercantile law, which their extenare commerce distributed abroad. To Rhodes, which can scarcely be considered a province of Greece, we ewe the earliest regulations applicable to shipping. The law of average, or that by which the loss occasioned by throwing goods overboard to relieve a ship in distress is laid proportionally on the whole property saved (a most important branch of the commercial code of modern nations), had its origin in that state, and is still called the Rhodian law. There is the less importance, however, in the inquiry into the laws of early nations, ince all of ancient law which continues to have any force in civilised Europe, has come to us through one channel-namely, the Roman law. ROMAN LAW, AND THE SYSTEMS DERIVED FROM IT. Most European nations, being, as it were, the remoulded wrecks of the Roman Empire, have obtained the basis of their laws from that source. The Roman law is, therefore, by the common consent of Europe, denominated The Civil Law. In Europe there was but one other system at an early period, to combine with it. This was The Feudal Law, or that code of usages which had sprung up in European nations before they received the civil law. It is, after all, only in some countries that the feudal law exists: in other cases, the civil law has established a proportionate, and in some a preponderating influence. In Holland and Germany, the original purity of the principles of the civil law have been preserved with such zealous care, that the writings of the lawyers of those countries are quoted as authorities on the law of Rome. In Spain, the system has been grafted on the feudal law, and on some peculiar customs derived from the Moors. In France, preriously to the Revolution, the civil and the feudal law were united, as in most other nations of Europe; and in the Code Napoleon, to which we shall hereafter more particularly advert, there are many regulations from the jurisprudence of Rome allowed to exist, or revived, while many of the feudal customs which were formerly so prominent are abolished. England distinguished herself from the other nations of Europe by rejecting the civil law as authority, but many of her institutions were derived from its spirit and practice. With all its imperfections,' says Sir William Jones, 'it is a most valuable mine of judicial knowledge; it gives law at this hour to the greatest part of Europe, and though few English lawyers dare make such an acknowledgment, it is the true source of nearly all our No. 54, English laws that are not of a feudal origin.' In Scotland, the Roman law has always been a special subject of study; and though the number of native decisions, the extent of statute-law, and the necessary adaptation of the system to a state of society very different from that in which Justinian promulgated his code, have rendered references to this source comparatively unfrequent, the civil law is still authority where the particular law of Scotland does not contradict it. It is a special object of study by the legal profession, and is the subject on which the members of the bar are first examined before they are admitted to practice. Το complete the general outline of the influence of this system in modern Europe, it must be mentioned as the source of the canon law, which was created into a system by the Church of Rome, and still exists more or less, either separately or incorporated with other systems, in all countries where the papal authority was acknowledged. The law of nations, or international code, has been, by the common assent of civilised nations, derived from the law of Rome. Writers have divided the legislative sources from which the laws of Rome spring into five. Among the first of these is generally classed the people, and the laws sanctioned by them are technically divided into the Lex or Populiscitum, and the Plebiscitum; the former including the acts of the whole people, the latter those of the plebeians convened by their tribunes. It would appear that, in the earlier periods of the monarchy, the authority of all classes was in this description of legislation tolerably equal. Servius Tullius, however, the sixth king, introduced the well-known divisions into centuries and classes, by which ninety-eight votes were secured to the first class, while ninety-five only were allotted to the remaining five, of which the lowest and most numerous possessed only one. The tribunes, who were officers chosen for the ostensible purpose of protecting the people from the tyranny of the aristocracy, were, by the exclusive and important power they possessed, again the means of restoring popular election. They procured the assembling of the people by tribes, in which their votes were given individually, and without the necessity of a property qualification. All popular legislation, however, soon disappeared with the authority of the emperors. Augustus, except in one instance, found the popular assemblies profoundly obedient, and under his successor they ceased to exist; so that long before the Roman laws had become the grand system of jurisprudence which they constituted under the auspices of Justinian, the popular source of legislation had been dried up. The decrees of the senate (Senatus consulta) are another source of the Roman law. The legislative power of this body seems to have grown out of its judicial, which was at first its proper province. By the original constitution, the people alone were understood to be the makers of the laws, and their authority seems to have been gradually engrossed by the senate, the interference of which, from having been confined to mere advice and paternal assistance in legislation, gradually extended itself to that of making laws. It was not till the days of Tiberius that these decrees were publicly promulgated as laws; but the senate had by that time lost its independent authority, and become merely an instrument in the hands of the emperor. The proceedings of the senate were generally suggested by some public officer, as a minister of the crown now introduces a bill into parliament, and a majority decided for passing or rejecting. In later times it became the practice for the emperor to propose a new law, either by a message or letter laid before the senate, or by an oration delivered; and as there was no opposition intended or 49 permitted, the legislative body became the mere regis- | rigour of the Twelve Tables; time and space were trars of the monarch's will. Another source of the civil law is the constitutions and rescripts of the emperors. At what time they commenced the practice of making laws without the nominal concurrence either of the senate or the people, is not very distinctly known. A passage in the Pandects, the authenticity of which, long doubted, has been confirmed by late discoveries, states that the will of the emperor is law, and that by a particular act, the people had conferred upon him all their own power, which was thenceforth absolutely to remain in his hands-one of those transactions under the guise of which rulers are so fond of concealing their lust of power, by representing as a free gift that which no one can venture to refuse. Hadrian is believed to be the first emperor who exercised the authority of a supreme legislator. The imperial laws were issued in a variety of forms. Sometimes there was a new constitution springing from the monarch's own creative mind-on another occasion he would give his imperial judgment on some nice speculative question of law dutifully submitted to his wisdom. Many of the imperial laws, however, were the decisions of the monarch in particular cases, the spirit of which was piously preserved by the lawyers of the age, as the best criterion for a general rule of action. In modern times, we associate with despotism a horror of innovation, and a desire to leave all institutions, whether expedient or hurtful, untouched. It was different in imperial Rome. The emperors were never tired of displaying the legislative produce of their own genius, or those which the prudent and courteous discoverers did not compete with them for the merit of suggesting. During four centuries, from Hadrian to Justinian, the manufacturing of legislation was in almost constant operation. Diocletian alone enacted 1200 new lawsa number that would do no discredit to a moderately long reign of a British monarch. Edicts of the prætors are another, and not the least important source of Roman jurisprudence. Of these high magistrates there were different numbers at different times; but the supreme authority vested in two, one having jurisdiction over the city, the other over the provinces. The prætor held his office for a year; and as a provision against his adapting his judgments to his own personal views, the Cornelian law obliged him to issue a sort of proclamation at the commencement of his magistracy, embodying the general principles to which he should adhere in his judgments; and thus, at the moment when he was least acquainted with the duties of his office, he had to fix the plan on which he was to execute them. The prætor was not originally vested with legislative power-it arose in the exercise of his judicial authority. He was merely the interpreter of the laws; but when they seemed to him to be hard, or otherwise erroneous, he did not scruple to suspend or alter their execution. The prætorian law has been compared to the equity system in England-a distinct system of law, arising out of those instances in which it was necessary to give relief from the strict interpretation of the common law. The common law had fixed a particular rule; a case would arise in which its application would be very oppressive: the common law judges, bound by their system, could give no relief; but the chancellor took upon him to modify the evil, and his decision was followed in like cases. The system of the prætors was somewhat similar, with this difference, that as they had no judges to compete with who pursued a system of strict interpretation, their equity had rather a tendency to modify the common law than to raise a rival structure. The secret or probable wish of the dead,' says Gibbon, when illustrating the prætorian system, was suffered to prevail over the order of succession and the forms of testaments; and the claimant, who was excluded in the character of heir, accepted with equal pleasure from an indulgent prætor the possession of the goods of his late kinsman or benefactor. In the redress of private wrongs, compensations and fines were substituted to the obsolete 6 annihilated by fanciful suppositions; and the plea of youth, or fraud, or violence, annulled the obligation, or excused the performance of an inconvenient contract.' With the expiry of his year of office, the edicts of the prætor ceased to be imperative; but they were still looked up to as precedents; and when they became venerable by long use, they were considered as part of the fixed law of the land. By an enactment of the Emperor Hadrian, called the Perpetual Edict,' this doubtful and fluctuating branch of the law-at least as much of it as the emperor chose to sanction-received what might be called the royal assent, and was incorporated with the other portions of the civil law as a distinct branch of the system. In almost every nation which has passed gradually from barbarism to civilisation, many laws will be found to have come into existence without the direct interference of any legislature, and from no better defined origin than a habit on the part of the people of submitting to certain rules, or obeying the commands of certain individuals: it is, indeed, generally in this manner that legislatures have originated. A considerable portion of the Roman law was of this kind: it arose in custom, was handed down by tradition and practice, and called consuetudinary law. It is a disputed question, how far it was necessary that some competent authority should certify that the principle actually was an established portion of the ancient customs of the nation, before it could be safely acted upon as law. It is a peculiarity of the civil, as distinguished from the English jurisprudence, that, according to the former, a law may be tacitly abrogated by long disuse. In England, no law, however long forgotten, ceases to exist till it be repealed by the legislature. The last fountain of Roman jurisprudence which we shall notice, is the Responia Prudentum-literally, the answers of the wise men-the opinions of the sages of the law. It is difficult to conceive a state of society in which the opinions of legal writers, as to the interpretation of the law, will not have an influence. If a case occur in which the judge is uncertain as to the proper application of some enactment, where can he find a more suitable or a safer guide than in the opinion of some far-seeing lawyer, who has anticipated the case without knowing the parties, and who, consequently, cannot have proceeded on a bias to one or the other-a defect of which the judge, if he be the first to interpret the law, will be at least suspected? Even in England, where interference with the doctrines of the common law is so jealously opposed, the early commentators are the only authority for its provisions; and there is no doubt that they gave the hue of their own opinions to the doctrines they laid down. In Rome, however, where the profession of the law, instead of being a trade, conferred a high rank in society, the opinions of leading counsel had a much more extensive range. They not only interpreted, but they could create law, by suggesting how the decisions should proceed in imaginary cases. At an early period, the relation of lawyer and client was that of patron and dependant. Patricians alone could act as lawyers, and the science was involved in riddles to which they only possessed the key. The poor client was dependent on the good will of his lordly patron for such protection from oppression, whether through the law or otherwise, as the influence of the latter might enable him to afford. When population and transactions increased, and the laws, instead of a mystery, became a serious study, which depended more on laborious application than simple initiation, the profession was opened to plebeians. It became not an unusual case, at a still more advanced period, for the patron and lawyer to be separated; the former being chosen for his influence, the latter for his skill. The forms which regulated the intercourse between patron and client, however, still retained some relics of their origin; and it is a striking illustration of the influence which Roman jurisprudence has exercised over the human race, to find these still existing. |