CHAP. II.: Of the Liberty of the Subject.

PHILOSOPHICAL liberty consists in the free exercise of the will; or, at least, if we must speak agreeably to all systems, in an opinion that we have the free exercise of our will. Political liberty consists in security; or, at least, in the opinion that we enjoy security.

This security is never more dangerously attacked than in public or private accusations. It is therefore on the goodness of criminal laws that the liberty of the subject principally depends.

Criminal laws did not receive their full perfection all at once. Even in places where liberty has been most sought after it has not been always found. Aristotle Politics, book 2. ^†388 informs us, that, at Cumæ, the parents of the accuser might be witnesses. So imperfect was the law, under the kings of Rome, that Servius Tullus pronounced sentence against the children of Ancus Martius, who were charged with having assassinated the king his father-in-law Tarquinius Priscus. See Dionys. Halicarn. book 4. ^†389. Under the first kings of France, Clotarius made a law So early as the year 560. ^†390, that nobody should be condemned without being heard; which shews that a contrary custom had prevailed in some particular case, or among some barbarous people. It was Charondas that first established penalties against false witnesses Aristot. Polit. book 2, chap. 12. He gave his laws at Thurium, in the 84th Olympiad. ^†391. When the subject has no fence to secure his innocence, he has none for his liberty.

The knowledge already acquired in some countries, or that may be hereafter attained in others,

concerning the surest rules to be observed in criminal judgements, is more interesting to mankind than any other thing in the world.

Liberty can be founded on the practice of this knowledge only; and, supposing a state to have the best laws imaginable in this respect, a person tried under that state, and condemned to be hanged the next day, would have much more liberty than a bashaw enjoys in Turkey.