There cannot be a stronger proof of the difference of times and places. The consul Manlius would have been condemned by the laws of England to lose his own life, for having put his son to death; whereas he was admired and extolled for that action by the rigid Romans: but the same laws would not punish a prince of Wales for leaving the kingdom, who, as a peer of the realm, has a right to go and come when he pleases.[107] A criminal design, not perpetrated, is not punishable by the laws in England[108] or France, but it is in Russia. A continued formal and repeated disobedience of commands would, amongst us, be considered only an error in conduct, which ought to be suppressed; but, in Russia, it was judged a capital crime in the heir of a great empire, whose ruin might have been the consequence of that disobedience. Lastly, the czarowitz was culpable towards the whole nation, by his design of throwing it back into that state of darkness and ignorance, from which his father had so lately delivered it. Such was the acknowledged power of the czar, that he might put his son to death for disobedience to him, without consulting any one; nevertheless, he submitted the affair to the judgment of the representatives of the nation, so that it was in fact the nation itself who passed sentence on the prince; and Peter was so well satisfied with the equity of his own conduct, that he voluntarily submitted it to the judgment of every other nation, by causing the whole proceedings to be printed and translated into several languages. The law of history would not permit us to disguise or palliate aught in the relation of this tragic event. All Europe was divided in its sentiments, whether most to pity a young prince, prosecuted by his own father, and condemned to lose his life, by those who were one day to have been his subjects; or the father, who thought himself under a necessity to sacrifice his own son to the welfare of his nation.