But let Tamerlane arrive and subjugate India, and you will then see nothing but arbitrary laws. One will oppress and grind down a whole province, merely to enrich one of Tamerlane's collectors of revenue; another will screw up to the crime of high treason, speaking contemptuously of the mistress of a rajah's chief valet; a third will extort from the farmer a moiety of his harvest, and dispute with him the right to the remainder; in short, there will be laws by which a Tartar sergeant will be authorized to seize your children in the cradle--to make one, who is robust, a soldier--to convert another, who is weak, into a eunuch--and thus to leave the father and mother without assistance and without consolation. But which would be preferable, being Tamerlane's dog or his subject? It is evident that the condition of his dog would be by far the better one. LAWS (SPIRIT OF). It would be admirable, if from all the books upon laws by Bodin, Hobbes, Grotius, Puffendorf, Montesquieu, Barbeyrac, and Burlamaqui, some general law was adopted by the whole of the tribunals of Europe upon succession, contracts, revenue offences, etc. But neither the citations of Grotius, nor those of Puffendorf, nor those of the "Spirit of Laws," have ever led to a sentence in the Châtelet of Paris or the Old Bailey of London. We weary ourselves with Grotius, pass some agreeable moments with Montesquieu; but if process be deemed advisable, we run to our attorney. It has been said that the letter kills, but that in the spirit there is life. It is decidedly the contrary in the book of Montesquieu; the spirit is diffusive, and the letter teaches nothing. _False Citations In The "Spirit Of Laws", And False Consequences Drawn From Them By The Author._ It is observed, that "the English, to favor liberty, have abstracted all the intermediate powers which formed part of their constitution." On the contrary, they have preserved the Upper House, and the greater part of the jurisdictions which stand between the crown and the people. "The establishment of a vizier in a despotic state is a fundamental law." [Illustration: Montesquieu.] A judicious critic has remarked that this is as much as to say that the office of the mayors of the palace was a fundamental office. Constantine was highly despotic, yet had no grand vizier. Louis XIV. was less despotic, and had no first minister. The popes are sufficiently despotic, and yet seldom possess them. "The sale of employments is good in monarchical states, because it makes it the profession of persons of family to undertake employments, which they would not fulfil from disinterested motives alone."