of morals over the laws; for the law will be changed by the simple fact, that we shall not find any person, who will consent to apply it."

I feel honored in having maintained the same opinion in my Observations on Criminal Legislation; but I solicit those, who wish to see this question discussed in its whole extent, to read the profound reflections which the Duke de Broglie has just published on the subject, in the last number of the Revue Française (for October, 1828.)

The whole criminal procedure in the Pentateuch rests upon three principles, which may be thus expressed; publicity of the trial, entire liberty of defence allowed to the accused; and a guaranty against the dangers of testimony. According to the Hebrew text one witness is no witness; there must be at least two or three who know the fact. The witness,

who testifies against a man, must swear that he speaks the truth; the judges then proceed to take exact information of the matter; and, if it is found that the witness has sworn falsely, they compel him to undergo the punishment to which he would have exposed his neighbor. The discussion between the accuser and the accused is conducted before the whole assembly of the people. When a man is condemned to death, those witnesses, whose evidence decided the sentence, inflict the first blows, in order to add the last degree of certainty to their evidence. Hence the expression Let him among you, who is without sin, cast the first stone.

If we pursue their application of these fundamental rules in practice, we shall find that a trial proceeded in the following

manner.

On the day of the trial, the executive officers of justice caused the accused per

son to make his appearance. At the feet of the Elders were placed men, who under the name of auditors, or candidates, followed regularly the sittings of the Council. The papers in the case were read; and the witnesses were called in succession. The president addressed this exhortation to each of them: "It is not conjectures, or whatever public rumor has brought to thee, that we ask of thee; consider that a great responsibility rests upon thee; that we are not occupied by an affair, like a case of pecuniary interest, in which the injury may be repaired. If thou causest the condemnation of a person unjustly accused, his blood, and the blood of all the posterity of him, of whom thou wilt have deprived the earth, will fall upon thee; God will demand of thee an account, as he demanded of Cain an account of the blood of Abel. Speak."

A woman could not be a witness, because she would not have the courage to give the first blow to the condemned person; nor could a child, that is irresponsible, nor a slave, nor a man of bad character, nor one whose infirmities prevent the full enjoyment of his physical and moral faculties. The simple confession of an individual against himself, or the declaration of a prophet, however renowned, would not decide a condemnation. The Doctors say "We hold it as fundamental, that no one shall prejudice himself. If a man accuses himself before a tribunal, we must not believe him, unless the fact is attested by two other witnesses; and it is proper to remark, that the punishment of death inflicted upon Achan, in the time of Joshua was an exception, occasioned by

*

the nature of the circumstances; for our

* Joshua vii. 19, &c.

law does not condemn upon the simple confession of the accused, nor upon the declaration of one prophet alone.”

The witnesses were to attest to the identity of the party, and to depose to the month, day, hour, and circumstances of the crime. After an examination of the proofs, those judges, who believed the party innocent, stated their reasons; those who believed him guilty spoke afterwards, and with the greatest moderation. If one of the auditors, or candidates, was entrusted by the accused with his defence, or if he wished in his own name to present any elucidations in favor of innocence, he was admitted to the seat, from which he addressed the judges and the people. But this liberty was not granted to him, if his opinion was in favor of condemning. Lastly; when the accused person himself wished to speak, they gave the most profound attention. When the discussion was