ther the punishments of death be really just or useful in a well governed state. What right have men to cut the throats of their fellow-creatures ? certainly not that on which the sovereignty and laws are founded. The laws are only the sum of the smallest portions of the private liberty of each individual, and represent the general will, which is the aggre gate of that of each individual. Did any one ever give to others the right of taking away his life? Is it possible that, in the smallest portions of the liberty of each, sacrificed to the good of the public, can be contained the greatest of all good, life! If it were so, how shall it be reconciled to the maxim which tells us that a man has no right to kill himself; which he certainly must have, if he could give it away to another?

But the punishment of death is not authorized by any right; for no such right exists. It is, therefore, a war of a whole nation against a citizen, whose destruction they consider as necessary or useful to the general good. Ibid.

See DEATH, PUNISHMENT OF.

PUNISHMENTS, TURKISH.

In Turkey, if a butcher sells short weight or stinking meat, for the first offence his meat is all given to the poor; he is tied to a post all day in the sun, a piece of stinking meat is hung close to his nose; besides, he is sentenced to pay a sum of money. For the second offence, he undergoes a severe corporal punishment, and pays a heavy fine; and for the third offence he is put to death.

If a baker sells short weight or bad bread, for the first offence his bread is given to the poor, and he is nailed to his door, sometimes by one ear,

some

times by two, for the space of twenty-four hours. For the second offence, his bread is given to the poor, and he receives two or three hundred basti, nadoes on his feet, sometimes on his back; afterwards, they put his head through a hole in a large board loaded with lead, and force him to walk through the principal streets, until he is alm st exhausted. If he survives this, and commits a third offence, he is beheaded.

PUNISHMENTS, VARIOUS, OF DIFFERENT
COUNTRIES.

Lewis IX, king of France, who, for his virtues, was numbered among the saints, made a law against blasphemers. He condemned them to a new punishment their tongues were pierced with a hot iron. It was a kind of retaliation, the sinning member suffering the punishment. But it was somewhat difficult to determine what was blasphemy. Expres sions frequently escape from a man in a passion, from joy, or even in conversation, which are merely expletives, such as the sela and the vab of the He brews, the pol and the ædepal of the Latins, as also "per deos immortales," an expression frequently used without the least intention of swearing by the immortal gods.

The words which are called oaths and blasphemy are commonly vague terms which may be variously interpreted. The law by which they are punished seems to be founded on that of the Jews, which says, "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain." The best commentators are of opinion, that this commandment relates to perjury; and there is the more reason to believe them right, as the word shave, which is translated" in vain," properly

2 E 3

properly signifies perjury. Now what analogy can there be between perjury and cabo de dios, cadebis, saugbleu, ventrebleu, corpo di dio, &c.?

It was customary with the jews to swear by the life of God," as the Lord liveth :" the phrase was common, so that it was lying in the name of God that was forbidden.

Philip Augustus, in 1181, condemned the nobi lity who should pronounce the words which are softened in the terms tetebleu, ventrebleu, corbleu, sangbleu, to pay a fine, and the plebeians to be drowned. The first part of this law seems puerile, the latter abominable. It was an outrage to nature to drown one man for a crime for which another paid a few pence of the money of those times. So that this law, like many others, remained unexecuted, especially when the king was excommunicated, and his kingdom interdicted, by Pope Celestine III.

St. Lewis, transported with zeal, ordered indiscriminately, that whosoever should pronounce these indecent words should have his tongue bored or his upper lip cut off. A citizen of Paris having suf. fered this punishment, complained to Pope Innocent IV. This pontiff remonstrated to the king, that the punishment was too great for the crime; which, however, had no effect upon his majesty. Happy had it been for mankind if the popes had never affected any other superiority over kings.

The ordinance of Lewis XIV says, "Those who shall be convicted of having sworn by or blasphemed the holy name of God, of his most holy mother, or of his saints, shall, for the first offence, pay a fine; for the second, third, and fourth, a double, triple, and quadruple, fine; for the fifth, shall be put in the stocks; for the sixth, shall stand in the pillory and lose his upper lip; for the seventh, shall have his tongue cut out."

This