Let us render this observation more clear by a single example chosen from a number. We demand at present, that the legislator explain himself afresh on the grand question, what witnesses are necessary? but will he not always run the risk of being deceived, whether he absolutely rejects a probable evidence, or whether he makes the fate of a criminal depend upon it? How will he determine, that the testimony of an honest man, identifying the person of an assassin, in his own cause, should not be reckoned any thing by the judge; and how can he pretend also, that a testimony of this nature is sufficient to determine a condemnation, when he who gives the evidence appears suspicious, either from the motives, which we must suppose actuate him, or from the improbability of his assertion? Reason is then placed between two extremes; but intermediate ideas not being consonant with the absolute language of law, we ought, in such circumstances, to leave much to the wisdom and integrity of the magistrates; and so far from serving innocence by acting otherwise, we visibly endanger it; because judges habituate themselves to render the laws responsible for every thing, and respectfully submit to the letter, instead of obeying the spirit, which is the earnest desire of obtaining truth. What then, some will say, would you wish that there should be no positive instructions, neither to serve for a guide in the examination of crimes, nor to determine the character by which these crimes may be distinguished? This was never in my mind; but I could wish, that in an affair of such serious importance, they would unite to the judgment which proceeded from the prudence of the legislator, that which may be brought by the wisdom of the judges; I could wish, that the criminal legislation prescribed to the magistrates, not all that they are obliged to do, but all from which they are not exempt; not all that is sufficient to determine their opinion, but all which ought to be the indispensable condition of a capital punishment. Guided by such a spirit, the commands given by the law, would be a safeguard against the ignorance, or possible prevarication of the judges; but as any general rule, any immutable principle, is not applicable to an infinite diversity of circumstances, I would give to innocence a new defender, interesting in a more immediate manner the morality of the judges to search for and examine the truth, and to recal continually all the extent of their obligations; I could wish, that previous to their passing a sentence of condemnation, raising one of their hands towards heaven, they pronounced with earnestness these words: “I attest, that the man accused before us, appears to me guilty, according to the law, and according to my own private judgment.” It is not sufficient, that we command a judge to examine with probity, if the proofs of an offence, are conformable to those required by the statute; it is necessary to