燕谈 - Powered by Discuz! Board

标题: [原创] 布莱克斯通的《英格兰法律解释》翻译 [打印本页]

作者: WIND 时间: 2010-4-17 11:24 标题: 布莱克斯通的《英格兰法律解释》翻译

本帖最后由 WIND 于 2010-4-17 11:26 编辑

1,Blackstone(1723-1780),Commentaries on the Laws of England初版：1765-1769。
2，布莱克斯通的这部著作的诞生，得益于另一位先生的捐赠，他捐赠建立了一个讲座，布莱克斯通后来成为了这个讲座的讲师，便诞生了这部伟大的著作。无知的人和无神论者总习惯性地指责英国这样的正常国家中的人性的自私自利，可是这只是泼妇式的谩骂。
3，到目前为止，我知道了：法国三位伟大的自由主义者——孟德斯鸠，托克维尔和巴斯夏——都是新教徒；美国的华盛顿，亚当斯和杰斐森，都是新教徒，亚当斯和杰斐森被认为是美国自由的两极——法治和民主；被杰斐森称为三个伟大的人物——洛克，培根和牛顿——都是新教徒；当整个法国抽搐的时候，站出来辨别是非的爱德蒙·伯克，是新教徒；被伯克赞誉的人物——爱德华·柯克和威廉·布莱克斯通——是新教徒；最近我刚刚来了解的美国最高法院法官——胡果·布莱克——是新教徒，他被誉为美国历史上最伟大的六位法官之一。有些刚刚接触基督教的中国人，认为可以用科学家的基督信仰来说服大众，其实这是错误的，你们只要去好好读读新约，就会明白那些“文士和法利赛人”，是我们的救主早已明确告知的。被上帝拣选，信靠耶和华是莫大的恩典，圣经的通俗明白其实是特别的为我们这些文盲准备的，正如洛克所说，面对文士和法利赛人，祂需要准备的是另一部圣经，其中充满的是晦涩和奇思异想。
4，布莱克斯通的著作，诞生了Blackstone lawyer这一个特别的概念。《英格兰法律解释》阐释了right,wrong;rights,wrongs(正当，错误（不正当）；权利，非正义）这些基本概念。

作者: WIND 时间: 2010-4-17 13:18

5,另外，这样的翻译还绕不开拉丁文，只是我对此一无所知，只能借助搜索。
6，我不知道我能够翻译到什么地方。我手边有游云庭先生第一卷的译本，会作为参考。

作者: WIND 时间: 2010-4-17 13:20

BOOK 1, CHAPTER 1
OF THE ABSOLUTE RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS
第一卷，第一章
论个人的绝对权利

The objects of the laws of England are so very numerous and extensive, that, in order to consider them with any tolerable ease and perspicuity, it will be necessary to distribute them methodically, under proper and distinct heads; avoiding as much as possible divisions too large and comprehensive on the one hand, and too trifling and minute on the other; both of which are equally productive of confusion.
英格兰法律的对象如此繁多和广泛，以致，为了在可接受的难易和简明程度内考虑它们，必须有条理的对它们进行分类，分为恰当和清楚的条目；一方面要避免条目过于宽泛，另一方面又要避免过于细小；两方面都同样会产生混乱。

作者: WIND 时间: 2010-4-17 14:02

Now, as municipal law is a rule of civil conduct, commanding what is right, and prohibiting what is wrong; or, as Cicero,1 and after him our Bracton,2 has expressed it, sanctio justa, jubens honesta et prohibens contraria; it follows, that the primary and principal objects of the law are rights, and wrongs. In the prosecution therefore of these commentaries, I shall follow this very simple and obvious division; and shall in the first place consider the rights that are commanded, and secondly the wrongs that are forbidden by the laws of England.
现在，如同自治（municipal，城市，城镇和村庄的自治，指它们自身民主选举管理机构）法律是一种世俗行为的规则，规定正当的行为，阻止错误的行为；或者，如同西塞罗（Cicero，106 BC – 43 BC，罗马哲学家，政治人物，律师，政治理论家，立宪主义者），以及其后我们的布拉克顿（Bracton，ca. 1210 – 1268，英国法学家，代表作：On the Laws and Customs of England）所表述的：sanctio justa, jubens honesta et prohibens contraria（a just decree, commanding what is honorable and forbidding the contrary，正当的法律，规定应当尊重的行为，并阻止应当唾弃的行为）；于是，法律首先和重要的对象便是权利和非正义。所以，在这些解释的接下来的部分，我会遵从这条非常简单和明显的分类法；首先考虑规定的权利，然后是被英格兰法律所阻止的非正义。

作者: WIND 时间: 2010-4-17 14:50

Rights are however liable to another subdivision; being either, first, those which concern, and are annexed to the persons of men, and are then called jura personarum or the rights of persons; or they are, secondly, such as a man may acquire over external objects, or things unconnected with his person, which are styled jura rerum or the rights of things. Wrongs also are a divisible into, first, private wrongs, which, being a infringement merely of particular rights, concern individuals only, and are called civil injuries; and secondly, public wrongs, which, being a breach of general and public rights, affect the whole community, and are called crimes and misdemeanors.

然而，权利应当再进一步细分；其一，与人们的人身相关联的那些权利，被称为jura personarum（rights of persons，人身权利）；其二，诸如一个人可以获得的外部对象或物品，这些东西与他的人身不相关联，被称为jura rerum（rights of things，财产权利）。非正义也可以分为：其一，个体非正义，它仅仅侵犯特定的个体权利，仅仅与个体相关联，被称为世俗伤害；其二，公共非正义，它是对一般的和公共的权利的破坏，影响到整个共同体，被称为crimes和misdemeanors（重罪和轻罪）。

作者: WIND 时间: 2010-4-17 16:00

The objects of the laws of England falling into this fourfold division, the present commentaries will therefore consist of the four following parts: 1. The rights of persons; with the means whereby such rights may be either acquired or lost. 2. The rights of things; with the means also of acquiring and losing them. 3. Private wrongs, or civil injuries; with the means of redressing them by law. 4. Public wrongs, or crimes and misdemeanors; with the means of prevention and punishment.

既然英格兰法律的对象划为四块，所以本部解释将包含以下四个部分：1，人身权利；及人身权利获得或丧失的方式。2，财产权利；及获得或丧失财产的方式。3，个体非正义，或曰世俗伤害；及通过法律补偿伤害的方式。4，公共非正义，或曰重罪和轻罪；及阻止和惩罚的方式。

作者: WIND 时间: 2010-4-19 09:37

We are now, first, to consider the rights of persons; with the means of acquiring and losing them.
我们现在首先来考虑人身权利；及人身权利获得或丧失的方式。

Now the rights of persons that are commanded to be observed by the municipal law are to two sorts; first, such as are due from every citizen, which are usually called civil duties; and, secondly, such as belong to him, which is the more popular acceptation of rights or jura. Both may indeed be comprised in this latter division; for as all social duties are of a relative nature, at the same duties are of a relative nature, at the same time that they are due from one man, or set of men, they must also be due to another. But I apprehend it will be more clear and easy, to consider many of them as duties required from, rather than as rights belonging to, particular persons. Thus, for instance, allegiance is usually, and therefore most easily, considered as the duty of the people, and protection as the duty of the magistrate; and yet they are, reciprocally, the rights as well as duties of each other. Allegiance is the right of the magistrate, and protection the right of the people.
现在由自治法律规定要求遵守的人身权利分为两类；其一，比如那些每个公民应当履行的，通常称之为世俗责任；其二，比如那些属于每个人的，这是rights或jura更为大众化的含义。实际上两者都可以包含在后一种含义之中；因为如同所有的社会责任都有一种相对的性质，对同样的责任必有一种相关物，在责任应当由一个人或一群人履行的同时，它们必定会由其他人得到。但是，我认为将大多数权利理解成要求特定的个人履行的责任而不是属于他们的权利，将会更加清晰和易于理解。这样的话，举例来说，非常容易的，忠于国王通常可以认为是人们的责任，而保护人们则是管理者的责任；当然也可以反过来说，他们彼此的责任，也是彼此的权利。要求忠诚是管理者的权利，要求保护是人们的权利。

作者: WIND 时间: 2010-4-19 09:39

Persons also are divided by the law into either natural persons, or artificial. Natural persons are such as the God of nature formed us: artificial are such as created and devised by human laws for the purposed of society and government; which are called corporations or bodies politic.
人身也可以由法律分为“自然的人身”（natural persons）和“人为的”（artificial）。“自然的人身”指那些由自然神所赋予我们的：“人为的”指那些由人类法律为着社会和政府的意图而创造和设想的；它们被称之为团体或政治实体。

The rights of persons considered in their natural capacities are also of two sorts, absolute, and relative. Absolute, which are such as appertain and belong to particular men, merely as individuals or single persons: relative, which are indigent to them as members of society, and standing in various relations to each other. The first, that is, absolute rights, will be the subject of the present chapter.
人身权利就它们的自然位分（natural capacity）而言也可以分为两类：绝对的和相对的。绝对的人身权利，是指那些与特定的人相适应且属于他们的权利，仅仅就单个人而言：相对的人身权利，是指每个人作为社会成员所需要的，存在于各种各样的相互关系之中。首先是绝对的权利，将是本章的主题。

作者: WIND 时间: 2010-4-19 10:06

本帖最后由 WIND 于 2010-4-19 10:13 编辑

华盛顿特区联邦最高法院前面的布莱克斯通塑像

作者: eric 时间: 2010-4-19 11:43

能否解释一下“新教徒”？

作者: eric 时间: 2010-4-19 11:46

你列举这些人是“新教徒”，想说明什么？
加尔文和卡斯特里奥是“新教徒”？

作者: WIND 时间: 2010-4-19 13:12

你列举这些人是“新教徒”，想说明什么？
加尔文和卡斯特里奥是“新教徒”？
eric 发表于 2010-4-19 11:46

你有什么问题?

作者: WIND 时间: 2010-4-19 13:57

By the absolute rights of individuals we mean those which are so in their primary and strictest sense; such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy whether out of society or in it. But with regard to the absolute duties, which man is bound to perform considered as a mere individual, it is not to be expected that any human municipal laws should at all explain or enforce them. For the end and intent of such laws being only to regulate the behavior of mankind, as they are members of society, and stand in various relations to each other, they have consequently no business or concern with any but social or relative duties. Let a man therefore be ever so abandoned in his principles, or vicious in his practice, provided he keeps his wickedness to himself, and does not offend against the rules of public decency, he is out of the reach of human laws. But if he makes his vices public, though they be such as seem principally to affect himself, (as drunkenness, or the like) they then become, by the bad example they set, of pernicious effects to society; and therefore it is then the business of human laws to correct them. Here the circumstance of publication is what alters the nature of the case. Public sobriety is a relative duty, and therefore enjoined by our laws: private sobriety is an absolute duty, which, whether it be performed or not, human tribunals can never know; and therefore they can never enforce it by any civil sanction. But, with respect to rights, the case is different. Human laws define and enforce as well those rights which belong to a man considered as an individual, as those which belong to him considered as related to others.

用“个人的绝对权利”，我们是在它们原初和最严格的意义上来表达那些权利的；比如那些仅仅属于自然状态的人身权利，以及那些每个人无论处在社会之外还是进入社会之中都有资格享有的权利。但是就绝对责任——人仅仅作为一个个体必须履行的——而言，不能期望任何人类自治法律应当来解释和强制。因为这样的法律的目的和意图只能调整当人类作为社会成员，处于各种各样的相互关系之中，从而只有社会或相互责任时的行为。所以，假如一个人就他自身的信条而言堕落，或者就他自身的行为而言罪恶，只要他将他的邪恶限于自身，且不违反公共正当行为规则，这便在人类法律的干预之外。但是，如果他将他的邪恶公共化，虽然这些邪恶看起来主要影响的也是他自己，（比如醉酒，或此类的行为）但是它们也变成了对社会有害的结果——树立有害的先例；因此变成人类法律应当矫正的事务。此处公开化的条件改变了事件的性质。公共饮酒节制是一种相对责任，所以被我们的法律加以规定：私人饮酒节制是一种绝对责任，其是否被履行，人类法庭无从得知；所以它们永远不能通过任何世俗授权而强制这种责任。但是就权利而言，事件是不同的。人类法律定义和强制那些属于个人但与他人相关的权利，也定义和强制那些属于个人但仅仅作为个体的权利。

作者: WIND 时间: 2010-4-19 14:58

For the principal aim of society is to protect individuals in the enjoyment of those absolute rights, which were vested in them by the immutable laws of nature; but which could no be preserved in peace without that mutual assistance and intercourse, which is gained by the institution of friendly and social communities. Hence it follows, that the first and primary end of human laws is to maintain and regulate these absolute rights of individuals. Such rights as are social and relative result from, and are posterior to, the formation of states and societies: so that to maintain and regulate these, is clearly a subsequent consideration. And therefore the principal view of human laws is, or ought always to be, to explain, protect, and enforce such rights as are absolute, which in themselves are few and simple; and, then, such rights as are relative, which arising from a variety of connections, will be far more numerous and more complicated. These will take up a greater space in any code of laws, and hence may appear to be more attended to, though in reality they are not, than the rights of the former kind. Let us therefore proceed to examine how far all laws ought, and how far the laws of England actually do, take notice of these absolute rights, and provide for their lasting security.

因为社会的首要目标是保护个人享有那些绝对权利，这些权利由永恒的自然法律赋予他们；但是若没有友好的制度和社会共同体所带来的相互的协助和交往，这些权利便不能和平的得到维持。由此，人类法律首先和初期的目的便是维持和调整这些个人的绝对权利。那些社会的和相对的权利则出现在国家和社团形成之后：所以维持和调整这些权利，很明显是之后才需要考虑的事情。因此，人类法律的首要观点是，或应当是——去解释，保护和强制这样的绝对权利，这些权利本身数量不多而且简单；然后，那些在大量的相互关系中出现的相对权利，数量和复杂性要远远的甚于前者。在任何法律文本中相对权利都要占据主要的篇幅，因而可能看起来出镜率更高，虽然事实上它们并不比绝对权利更为常见。所以，下面让我们继续审查所有的法律以及英格兰法律实际上在多大的程度上关注这些绝对权利并给与它们持续的安全保证。

作者: WIND 时间: 2010-4-19 16:37

The absolute rights of man, considered as a free agent, endowed with discernment to know good from evil, and with power of choosing those measures which appear to him to be most desirable, are usually summed up in one general appellation, and denominated the natural liberty of mankind. This natural liberty consists properly in a power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, unless by the law of nature: being a right inherent in us by birth, and one of the gifts of God to man at His creation, when He endued him with the faculty of free will. But every man, when he enters into society, gives up a part of his natural liberty, as the price of so valuable a purchase; and, in consideration of receiving the advantages of mutual commerce, obliges himself to conform to those laws, which the community has thought proper to establish. And this species of legal obedience and conformity is infinitely more desirable, than that wild and savage liberty which is sacrificed to obtain it. For no man, that considers a moment, would wish to retain the absolute and uncontrolled power of doing whatever he pleases; the consequence of which is, that every other man would also have the same power; and then there would be no security to individuals in any of enjoyments of life.

作为一个自由个体的人，被赋予了辨别善恶的能力，也赋予了选择在他看来最可欲的手段的权力，他的绝对权利通常有一个一般的总称，称之为“人类的自然自由”（natural liberty of mankind）。这种自然自由恰当的包括以他认为合适的方式只受自然法约束和控制而行动的权力：在上帝赋予他自由意志的能力的时候，这便作为与生俱来的一种权利和赐予他的礼物之一。但是每个人，当他进入社会，便将放弃他的一部分自然自由，作为交换社会价值的代价；并且，考虑到可以获得互相交易的好处，约束他自己去遵守那些共同体已经恰当的建立起来的法律。这种法律服从和遵守相比那种要放弃的野蛮和粗鲁的自由，其实要无限的可期待的多。因为没有人——稍微考虑一下——希望保留这种绝对的和不受控制的做他想做的事的权力；那样做的结果意味着，其他每个人也拥有同样的权力；这样对任何个人享受生命便没有安全保证可言了。

作者: eric 时间: 2010-4-19 16:53

你有什么问题?
WIND 发表于 2010-4-19 13:12

我不解你强调这几个人的“新教徒”身份的目的。

作者: WIND 时间: 2010-4-19 16:54

我不解你强调这几个人的“新教徒”身份的目的。
eric 发表于 2010-4-19 16:53

没什么目的，只是了解了一点事实而已。

作者: WIND 时间: 2010-4-20 09:24

本帖最后由 WIND 于 2010-4-20 10:18 编辑

Political therefore, or civil, liberty, which is that of a member of society, is no other than natural liberty so far restrained by human laws (and not farther) as is necessary and expedient for the general advantage of the public.3 Hence we may collect that the law, which restrains a man from doing mischief to his fellow citizens, though it diminishes the natural, increases the civil liberty of mankind: but every wanton and causeless restraint of the will to the subject, whether practiced by a monarch, a nobility, or a popular assembly, is a degree to tyranny. Nay, that even laws themselves, whether made with or without our consent, if they regulate and constrain our conduct in matters of mere indifference, without any good end in view, are laws destructive of liberty:whereas if any public advantage can arise from observing such precepts, the control of our private inclinations, in one or two particular points, will conduce to preserve our general freedom in others of more importance; by supporting that state, of society, which alone can secure our independence.

所以，政治自由或曰世俗自由（或译为：公民自由），便是作为一个社会成员的自由，只不过是自然自由由人类法律约束而已，其约束的程度，对一般公共利益而言是必要和适宜的，但不超过此限。于是我们可以概括的说，法律是约束一个人不去伤害他的同国公民，虽然这缩减了人类自然自由，增加了公民自由：但是每个臣民肆意和无理的控制的意志，无论是来源于君主，贵族，还是一个大众的群体，均为暴政。不，就算是法律本身，无论它们是否经过我们的同意，如果它们在无关紧要的事务中管理和限制我们的行为，而没有任何有益的可期待的目的，便是破坏自由的法律：反之，如果任何公共利益能够以遵守这样的戒律而形成的话，对我们私人意愿的控制——在一两个特别的方面——将有益于维护我们在其它更重要的方面的一般的自由；只有通过支持这种社会状态，才能保证我们的独立。

作者: WIND 时间: 2010-4-20 11:24

Thus the statute of king Edward IV,4 which forbad the fine gentlemen of those times (under the degree of a lord) to wear pikes upon their shoes or boots of more than two inches in length, was law that favored of oppression; because, however ridiculous the fashion than in use might appear, the restraining it by pecuniary penalties could serve no purpose of common utility. But the statute of king Charles II,5 which prescribes a thing seemingly as indifferent; viz. a dress for the dead, who are all ordered to be buried in woolen; is a law consistent with public liberty, for it encourages the staple trade, on which in great measure depends the universal good of the nation. So that laws, when prudently framed, are by no means subversive but rather introductive of liberty; for (as Mr. Locke has well observed6) where there is no law, there is no freedom. But then, on the other hand, that constitution or frame of government, that system of laws, is alone calculated to maintain civil liberty, which leaves the subject entire master of his own conduct, except, in those points wherein the public good requires some direction or restraint.

这样来看，国王爱德华四世（1442–1483）的那条法令——禁止那个时代低于贵族的绅士在他们的鞋或靴上装有超过两英寸的尖刺，是一条有助于压迫的法律；因为，无论这种流行看起来多么荒谬，通过罚金来约束它无益于任何共同效用的目的。但是国王查理二世（1630—1685）的那条法令，看起来规定的是没有差别的事情；即命令死者须着羊毛衣服入葬；却是一条与公共自由相一致的法律，因为它鼓励了一种重要产品的贸易，而国家普遍的利益在很大的程度上依赖于这一点。所以，当法律审慎制定的时候，便不会破坏自由，而只会引入自由；因为（如洛克已经很好的注意到）“没有法律的地方，便没有自由”。但是另一方面，政府的宪法或框架，及法律体系，只能维护世俗自由，除了公共利益要求某些引导或约束的场合之外，每个人的行为完全的由他自己主导。

作者: WIND 时间: 2010-4-20 14:42

The idea and practice of this political or civil liberty flourish in their highest vigor in these kingdoms, where it falls little short of perfection, and can only be lost or destroyed by the folly or demerits of its owner: the legislature, and of course the laws of England, being peculiarly adapted to the preservation of this inestimable blessing even in the meanest subject. Very different from the modern constitutions of other states, on the continent of Europe, and from the genius of the imperial law; which in general are calculated to vest an arbitrary and despotic power of controlling the actions of the subject in the prince, or in a few grandees. And this spirit of liberty is so deeply implanted in our constitution, and rooted even in our very soil, that a slave or a Negro, the moment he lands in England, falls under the protection of the laws, and with regard to all natural rights becomes eo instanti [instantly] a freeman.7
这种政治或世俗自由的观念和践行在这些王国（不列颠联合王国）中以它们最高的活力兴旺繁荣，几近完美，只有这些自由的拥有者的愚蠢或过错才可能丧失或破坏它：立法机构，以及英格兰法律，尤其适合于这种无价的赐福的维持，即使是对最卑贱的臣民。与现代欧陆其它国家的宪法非常的不同，与古罗马帝国法律（游云庭先生认为是罗马帝国，我认为是可以接受的理解）的非凡才智也非常的不同；这些法律，在一般的意义上，均可以认为是授予一个君主或几个大人物一种控制臣民行为的肆意和专横的权力。这种自由精神在我们的宪法中如此根深蒂固，甚至在我们的土壤中都生了根，以致，一个奴隶或者一个黑人，当他踏上英格兰土地的那一刻起，便置于法律的保护之下，立即成为一个享有所有自然权利的自由人。

作者: WIND 时间: 2010-4-20 16:10

The absolute rights of every Englishman (which, taken in a political and extensive sense, are usually called their liberties) as they are founded on nature and reason, so they are coeval with our form of government; though subject at times to fluctuate and change: their establishment (excellent as it is) being still human. At some times we have seen them depressed by overbearing and tyrannical princes; at others so luxuriant as even to tend to anarchy, a worse state than tyranny itself, as any government is better than none at all. But the vigor of our free constitution has always delivered the nation from these embarrassments, and, as soon as the convulsions consequent on the struggle have been over, the balance of our rights and liberties has settled to its proper level; and their fundamental articles have been from time to time asserted in parliament, as often as they were thought to be in danger.

每个作为英国人所拥有的绝对权利（在政治和广泛的意义上来说，通常称之为“英国人的自由”）建立在自然和理性的基础之上，所以它们与我们的政府形式共存；虽然有时不免波动和改变：它们的建立仍然是合乎人性的（这正是它的优越之处）。我们已经看到有些时候这些权利遭到专横和暴虐的君主的压制；另外一些时候太过繁茂以致倾向于无政府状态——一种比暴政本身更加糟糕的状态，因为任何政府都比完全无政府状态要好。但是我们的自由宪法的活力总是能够将国家从这些困境中拯救出来，而且，只要斗争的抽搐的后果一结束，我们权利和自由的平衡便能回归到它恰当的水平；这些权利常常面临危险，它们的基本信条总是能够一次又一次的在国会中得到宣告。

作者: WIND 时间: 2010-4-21 09:49

First, by the great charter of liberties, which was obtained, sword in hand, form king John; and afterwards, with some alterations, confirmed in parliament by king Henry the third, his son. Which charter contained very few new grants; but, as sir Edward Coke8 observes, was for the most part declaratory of the principal grounds of the fundamental laws of England. Afterwards by the statute called confirmatio cartarum9 [confirming charter], whereby the great charter is directed to be allowed as the common law; all judgments contrary to it are declared void; copies of it are ordered to be sent to all cathedral churches, and read twice a year to the people; and sentence of excommunication is directed to be as constantly denounced against all those that by word, deed, or counsel act contrary thereto, or in any degree infringe it.

首先，通过自由大宪章——由我们的先辈手执刀剑从国王约翰（1167–1216）那里获得；后来，经过一些变更，在国会中得到了约翰的儿子国王亨瑞三世（1207—1272）的确认。这份宪章只承认了非常少量的新的东西；但是，正如Sir爱德华•柯克所评论的，其绝大部分内容都是英格兰基本法律的主要基础的宣告。随后，通过法令“确认宪章”，大宪章被指示允许作为“共同法”（common law）；所有与之相悖的审判都被宣布为无效；它的副本被命令送往所有的教堂，每年两次向人们宣读；所有那些与之相悖的言语，行为或劝告，或者任何程度的违反，均被指示需经常的加以谴责，逐出教会。

作者: WIND 时间: 2010-4-21 14:21

本帖最后由 WIND 于 2010-4-21 14:23 编辑

Next by a multitude of subsequent corroborating statutes, (sir Edward Coke, I think, reckons thirty-two,10) from the first Edward to Henry the fourth. Then, after a long interval, by the Petition of Right; which was a parliamentary declaration of the liberties of the people, assented to by king Charles the first in the beginning of his reign. Which was closely followed by the still more ample concessions made by that unhappy prince to his parliament, before the fatal rupture between them; and by the many salutary laws, particularly the habeas corpus act, passed under Charles the second. To these succeeded the Bill of Rights, or declaration delivered by the lords and commons to the prince and princess of Orange 13 February 1688; and afterwards enacted in parliament, when they became king and queen: which declaration concludes in these remarkable words; "and they do claim, demand, and insist upon all and singular the premises, as their undoubted rights and liberties." And the act of parliament itself11 recognizes "all and singular the rights and liberties asserted and claimed in the said declaration to be the true, ancient, and indubitable rights of the people of this kingdom." Lastly, these liberties were again asserted at the commencement of the present century, in the Act of Settlement,12 whereby the crown is limited to his present majesty's illustrious house, and some new provisions were added at the same fortunate area for better securing our religion, laws, and liberties; which the statute declares to be "the birthright of the people of England;" according to the ancient doctrine of the common law.

接下来，从爱德华一世（1239–1307）到亨瑞四世（1367–1413），又通过了许多相关的确认法令（我认为，Sir爱德华•柯克统计了一下，有32份）。然后，经过一段长时间的沉寂之后，由“权利陈情书”再次得到宣告；这份国会的人们自由宣言，在查理一世（1600—1649）刚开始统治的时候得到他的同意。在与国会完全决裂之前，这些权利也可以说得到了这个不高兴的君主的遵守，他对国会做出了重大的让步；并且这些权利通过许多有益的法律得到了宣布，特别是“人身保护法案”（Habeas Corpus Act 1679），由查理二世签署通过。“权利法案”继承了这些东西，在1688年2月13日由贵族院和众院向奥兰治（Orange）王子和夫人宣布了这些权利；随后当他们成为国王和王后的时候，在国会中变成法案：这部宣言以这样的值得注意的措辞结束；“他们主张，要求，并坚持上述所有和任何一条，都作为他们无可置疑的权利和自由。”而且国会的法案本身也认为“前述宣言中宣告和主张的所有及任何一条权利和自由，都是这个王国的人们的真实，古老和不容置疑的权利”。最后，这些自由于本世纪初在“王位继承法案”中再一次得到了宣告，于是王权被限制在他的王宫之内，而且增加的某些新的条款使我们的宗教，法律和自由得到了更好的保证；这些权利被法令宣布为“英格兰人与生俱来的权利”；根据共同法古老的原则。

作者: WIND 时间: 2010-4-22 09:37

Thus much for the declaration of our rights and liberties. The rights themselves thus defined by these several statutes, consist in a number of private immunities; which will appear, from what has been premised, to be indeed no other, than either that residuum [remainder] of natural liberty, which is not required by laws of society to be sacrificed to public convenience; or else those civil privileges, which society has engaged to provide, in lieu of the natural liberties so given up by individuals. These therefore were formerly, either by inheritance or purchase, the rights of al mankind; but, in most other countries of the world being now more or less debased and destroyed, they at present may be said to remain, in a peculiar and emphatic manner, the rights of the people of England. And these may be reduced to three principal or primary articles; the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right of private property: Because as there is no other known method of compulsion, or of abridging man's natural free will, but by an infringement or diminution of one or other of these important rights, the preservation of these, inviolate, may justly be said to include the preservation of our civil immunities in their largest and most extensive sense.

这便是我们的权利和自由宣言。这些法令所定义的权利本身，由若干私人豁免权利（private immunity）组成；这些豁免权利——来源于那些被视为前提的绝对权利——看来恰恰要么是个人所保留的自然自由，它们不能被社会法律要求为了公共便利而做出牺牲；要么就是那些世俗的特殊权利（civil privileges），社会已经承诺给与的，用以替代个人所放弃的自然自由。所以，这些便是过去通过继承或交换所获得的人类权利；但是，在世界上的大多数其它国家，如今都或多或少的受到贬损和破坏，目前可以说它们以一种独特和强调的方式只保留在“英格兰人的权利”之中了。这些权利可以简化为主要或初始的三条；人身保障权利，人身自由权利，以及私有财产权利：因为除了侵犯或缩减这人或那人的这些重要权利之外，不知道还有什么方式可以强迫或缩减一个人的自然的自由意志，保护这些权利免于被侵犯，可以说便包括了在最大和最广泛的意义上对我们的世俗豁免权利的保护。

作者: eric 时间: 2010-4-22 10:37

common law 翻译成“共同法”？

作者: WIND 时间: 2010-4-22 10:52

common law 翻译成“共同法”？
eric 发表于 2010-4-22 10:37

又有什么问题？呵呵

作者: WIND 时间: 2010-4-22 10:53

本帖最后由 WIND 于 2010-4-22 13:44 编辑

I. The right of personal security consists in a person's legal and uninterrupted enjoyment of his life, his limbs, his body, his health, and his reputation.
I. 人身保障权利包含在一个人合法和不受干扰的享受他的生命，他的肢体（手和脚），他的身体，他的健康，以及他的名誉之中。

1. Life is the immediate gift of God, a right inherent by nature in every individual; and it begins in contemplation of law as soon as an infant is able to stir in the mother's womb. For if a woman is quick with child, and by a potion, or otherwise kills it in her womb; or if any one beat her, whereby the child dies in her body, and she is delivered of a dead child; this, though not murder, was by the ancient law homicide or manslaughter.14 But at present it is not looked upon in quite so atrocious a light, though it remains a very heinous misdemeanor.
1. 生命是上帝直接赐予的礼物，是自然赋予每个人的权利；只要婴儿能够在母亲子宫内活动，他在人类法律中的权利便开始了。因为如果一个女人怀有一个孩子，而通过服药或其它的方式将其杀死在子宫之中；或者被他人殴打而导致婴儿死于腹中，然后生下一个死婴；这虽然不是谋杀（murder），但是被古老的法律认为是杀人（homicide或manslaughter）。当然现在不会被认为是如此恶劣的行为了，然而仍然是一种严重的轻罪（misdemeanor）。

作者: WIND 时间: 2010-4-22 11:18

An infant in ventre sa mere, or in the mother's womb, is supposed in law to be born for many purposes. It is capable of having a legacy, or a surrender of a copyhold estate made to it. It may have a guardian assigned to it;16 and it is enabled to have an estate limited to its use, and to take afterwards by such limitation, as if it were then actually born.17 And in this point the civil law agrees with ours.18

一个母腹中（ventre sa mere，法语，即：the mother's belly）的婴儿，在法律中被认为承载了许多目的。它有能力拥有遗产，或成为一个合法财产所有者的转让者。它可以得到一名指定的监护人；并且它能够拥有它所必需的财产，随后取用，就像实际上它已经出生了一样。在这一点上，世俗法律同意我们的观点。

作者: WIND 时间: 2010-4-22 14:22

2. A man's limbs, (by which for the present we only understand those members which may be useful to him in fight, and the loss of which only amounts to mayhem by the common law) are also the gift of the wise creator; to enable man to protect himself from external injuries in a state of nature. To these therefore he has a natural inherent right; and they cannot be wantonly destroyed or disabled without a manifest breach of civil liberty.

2. 一个人的肢体（手和脚），（到目前的讲座为止，我们只要把手和脚理解为在战斗中对他有用的东西，我们的共同法规定只要丧失肢体便可定为严重的伤害罪）也是智慧的造物主的礼物；为了使人在自然状态中当面临外界伤害时能够保护自己。所以，为此目的，他拥有一种自然的与生俱来的权利；若没有对他人世俗自由的明显的侵害，它们便不能被肆意的破坏或加以禁止。

作者: WIND 时间: 2010-4-23 09:45

BOTH the life and limbs of a man are of such high value, in the estimation of the law of England, that it pardons even homicide if committed se defendendo [in self-defense], or in order to preserve them. For whatever is done by a man, to save either life or member, is looked upon as done upon the highest necessity and compulsion. Therefore if a man through fear of death or mayhem is prevailed upon to execute a deed, or do any other legal act; these, though accompanied with all other the requisite solemnities, may be afterwards avoided, if forced upon him by a well-grounded apprehension of losing his life, or even his limbs, in case of his non-compliance.19 And the same is also a sufficient excuse for the commission of many misdemeanors, as will appear in the fourth book.

在英格兰法律的观点中，一个人的生命和肢体具有如此高的价值，以致，在自我防御中或为了保护生命和肢体所行的杀人都可以得到宽恕。因为若为了保护生命或肢体，一个人无论做什么，都被认为是基于最高的必要性和强迫性而为之。所以，如果一个充满了死亡或严重伤害的恐惧的人成功杀死了对手，或做了任何其它合法的事；虽然这会伴有其它必要的严重事件，但如果在他的不顺从事件中，基于足够理由的对失去生命或即使只是失去肢体的担忧而不得不这样做，那么在事后的追究中也能得以豁免。同样的理由，在许多轻罪的实施中，也足以成为宽恕的条件，这在第四卷书中会讲到。

作者: WIND 时间: 2010-4-23 10:59

The constraint a man is under in these circumstances is called in law duress, from the Latin durities, of which there are two sorts; duress of imprisonment, where a man actually loses his liberty, of which we shall presently speak; and duress per minas [by threat], where the hardship is only threatened and impending, which is that we are now discoursing of. Duress per minas is either for fear of loss of life, or else for fear of mayhem, or loss of limb. And this fear must be upon sufficient reason; "non," as Bracton expresses it, "suspicio cujuslibet vani et meticulosi hominis, sed talis qui possit cadere in virum constantem; talis enim debet esse metus, qui in se contineat vitae periculum, aut corporis cruciatum."20 [It must not be the apprehension of a foolish and fearful man, but such as a courageous man may be susceptible of; it should be, for instance, such a fear as consists in an apprehension of bodily pain, or danger to life.]

一个人置于这样的情境之中，他所受的强迫在法律中称之为“强迫”（duress），来源于拉丁文“durities”，“强迫”有两种情况；监禁强迫，在这种情境中一个人实际上丧失了他的自由，这就是我们正在讲述的情形；以及强迫威胁（duress by threat），在这种情境中，困境仅仅是一种威胁和逼近，这是我们接下来要讨论的情况。强迫威胁可能因为对丧失生命的恐惧，也可能是对严重伤害或肢体丧失的恐惧。而且这种恐惧必需基于足够的理由；如同布拉克顿所表述的：“这不能被理解为是一个愚蠢和懦弱的人，而可能是一个有感知能力的勇敢的人；这种恐惧，举例来说，应该是包含了对身体伤害或生命威胁的理解的恐惧。”

作者: WIND 时间: 2010-4-23 11:21

本帖最后由 WIND 于 2010-4-23 15:58 编辑

A fear of battery, or being beaten, though never so well grounded, is no duress; neither is the fear of having one's house burnt, or one's goods taken away and destroyed; because in these cases, should the threat be performed, a man may have satisfaction by recovering equivalent damages:21 but no suitable atonement can be made for the loss of life, or limb. And the indulgence shown to a man under this, the principal, sort of duress, the fear of losing his life or limbs, agrees also with that maxim of the civil law; ignoscitur ei qui sanguinem suum qualiter qualiter redemptum voluit22 [He is justified who has acted in pure defense of his own life or limb].

对战斗的恐惧，或者担心被殴打，然而这从来不认为理由足够，所以不是强迫威胁；担心某人的房屋被烧毁，或担心某人的财产被拿走和破坏，也不是强迫威胁；因为在这些情境下，若威胁得到实现，一个人仍然可以通过恢复同等的损害而得到满足：但是对于生命或肢体的丧失则没有恰当的补偿。在这种情境下一个人所面临的他人的放纵，强迫所产生的主要结果是,对丧失生命或肢体的恐惧,与世俗法律的那条格言一致；即“在对自己的生命或肢体的纯粹防御中，一个人所做的都是正当（正义）的”。

作者: WIND 时间: 2010-4-23 15:52

本帖最后由 WIND 于 2010-4-23 16:02 编辑

The law not only regards life and member, and protects every man in the enjoyment of them, but also furnishes him with everything necessary for their support. For there is no man so indigent or wretched, but he may demand a supply sufficient for all the necessities of life, from the more opulent part of the community, by means of several statutes enacted for the relief of the poor, of which in their proper places. A humane provision; yet, though dictated by the principles of society, discountenanced by the Roman laws. For the edicts of the emperor Constantine, commanding the public to maintain the children of those who were unable to provide for them, in order to prevent the murder and exposure of infants, and institution founded on the same principle as our foundling hospitals, though comprised in the Theodosian code23 were rejected in Justinian's collection.

法律不仅仅关注生命和肢体，保护每个人享有它们，而且也为每个人得到它们的支持提供一切必需的东西。因为没有人会如此贫困或悲惨；除了通过若干适当的穷人救济法令，向共同体中其它较富裕的部分人要求提供足够的生活必需品之外，不能再有过多的要求。一条仁慈的法令；虽然为社会的原则所要求，古罗马法律却不赞成。因为康斯坦丁大帝（280？—337）的法令——指示社会成员合力抚养那些父母无力抚养的孩子，以阻止谋杀和丢弃婴孩，这种社会制度基于和我们弃婴医院（foundling hospital）同样的原则，虽然包含在《狄奥多西法典》之中（狄奥多西，东罗马帝国皇帝和整个罗马帝国的皇帝，347～395）却被《查士丁尼法典》所拒绝（查士丁尼，东罗马帝国皇帝，483～565）。

作者: WIND 时间: 2010-4-23 16:07

法律不是慈善，巴斯夏也非常通俗的阐释过这一点。

作者: WIND 时间: 2010-4-25 10:04

These rights, of life and member, can only be determined by the death of the person; which is either a civil or natural death. The civil death commences if any man be banished the realm24 by the process of the common law, or enters into religion; that is, goes into a monastery, and becomes there a monk professed: in which cases he is absolutely dead in law, and his next heir shall have his estate. For, such banished man is entirely cut off from society; and such a monk, upon his profession, renounces solemnly all secular concerns: and besides, as the popish clergy exclaimed an exemption from the duties of civil life, and the commands of the temporal magistrate, the genius of the English law would not suffer those persons to enjoy the benefits of society, who secluded themselves from it, and refused to submit to its regulations.25 A monk is therefore accounted civiliter mortuus [legally dead], and when he enters into religion may, like other dying men, make his testament and executors; or, if he makes none, the ordinary may grant administration to his next of kin, as if he were actually dead intestate.

这些生命和肢体的权利，只有当人身死亡才会终止；这种人身死亡可以是世俗死亡，也可以是自然死亡。任何人经过共同法的程序被逐出王国，或进入宗教——即进入修道院，成为那里的经过宣誓的修士，均可认为是世俗死亡：在这种情况中，在法律上被认为是绝对死亡，他最近的继承人应当拥有他的财产。因为，这样被驱逐的人完全的与社会隔绝；这样的修士，基于他的宣誓，庄严的放弃了所有世俗的社会关系：此外，既然天主教神职人员宣称免除世俗生命的责任并免受世俗管理者的命令，英格兰法律的精神便不能忍受这些人再享受世俗社会的好处，他们将自己与社会隔绝开来，并拒绝服从社会的约束。所以，修士被视为法律上的死亡，当他进入宗教，如同其他将死的人一样，可以确定他的遗嘱和遗嘱执行人；如果他没有确定，遗嘱官员（the ordinary）可以将财产管理权力授予他最近的亲属，如同实际上未立遗嘱而死亡的情况。

作者: WIND 时间: 2010-4-25 15:31

And such executors and administrators shall have the same power, and may bring the same actions for the debts due to the religious, and are liable to the same actions for those due from him, as if he were naturally deceased.26 Nay, so far has this principle been carried, that when one was bound in a bond to an abbot and his successors, and afterwards made his executors and professed himself a monk of the same abbey, and in process of time was himself made abbot thereof; here the law gave him, in the capacity of abbot, an action of debt against his own executors to recover the money due.27 In short, a monk or religious is so effectually dead in law, that a lease made even to a third person, during the life (generally) of one who afterwards becomes a monk, determines by such his entry into religion: for which reason leases, and other conveyances, for life, are usually made to have and to hold for the term of one's natural life.28 But, even in the times of popery, the law of England took no cognizance of profession in any foreign country, because the fact could not be tried in our courts;29 and therefore, since the reformation, the disability is held to be abolished.

并且，这样的执行人和管理者应当拥有同样的权力，可以对他的债务权利进行起诉，也应当对他的债务责任进行承担，如同他已经自然死亡。不，只要这种原则继续有效，当一个人与修士院院长和他的继承人订立契约，之后确定他的遗嘱执行人并宣告成为同一修道院的修士，随着时间的推移成为了修士院院长；此时法律允许他以修士院院长的身份起诉他自己的遗嘱继承人，重新获得他应得的财产。简而言之，修士或纯宗教人在法律上便是死亡，甚至与第三人签订的租赁契约，若之后成为了修士，便在他进入的时候终止：因为这些原因，租赁契约和其它此类的财产交易，通常都是在一个人的自然生命期内有效。但是，实际上在教皇时代，英格兰法律也没有对任何外国的宗教宣誓进行认定，因为这样的事实不能由我们的法庭审理；所以，宗教改革之后，不得审理的规定便废止了（法律开始介入）。

作者: WIND 时间: 2010-4-25 16:33

This natural life being, as was before observed, the immediate donation of the great creator, cannot legally be disposed of or destroyed by any individual, neither by the person himself nor by any other of his fellow creatures, merely upon their own authority. Yet nevertheless it may, by the divine permission, be frequently forfeited for the breach of those laws of society, which are enforced by the sanction of capital punishments; of the nature restrictions, expedience, and legality of which, we may hereafter more conveniently inquire in the concluding book of these commentaries. At present, I shall only observe, that whenever the constitution of a state vests in any man, or body of men, a power of destroying at pleasure, without the direction of laws, the lives of members of the subject, such constitution is in the highest degree tyrannical: and that whenever any laws direct such destruction for light and trivial causes, such laws are likewise tyrannical, though in an inferior degree; because here the subject is aware of the danger he is exposed to, and may by prudent caution provide against it.

这种自然生命——如前所说——是伟大造物主直接的恩赐，不能仅仅基于他们自己的权力而被任何个人合法的处置或破坏，无论是他自己还是任何其他的人。虽然如此，然而基于神圣的许可，若破坏那些社会法律——重罪惩罚所许可的强制法律，也是可以经常的予以剥夺的；至于重罪惩罚的自然限制，适用性和合法性问题，我们将在讲座的结论卷中予以讨论更为适宜。而此时，我只说，无论何时，若一个国家的宪法授予任何人或任何群体一种未经法律指引的肆意破坏臣民生命的权力，这样的宪法，便是最高层次的暴虐（宪法是最高的世俗法律）：无论何时，任何法律因为无关紧要和琐碎的原因而引导这样的破坏，这样的法律也是同样的暴虐，虽然是比宪法较低级的层次；因为臣民若意识到他所面临的危险，便可能会谨慎的提防这样的法律。

作者: WIND 时间: 2010-4-26 09:01

本帖最后由 WIND 于 2010-4-26 16:02 编辑

The statute law of England does therefore very seldom, and the common law does never, inflict any punishment extending to life or limb, unless upon the highest necessity: and the constitution is an utter stranger to any arbitrary power of killing or maiming the subject without the express warrant of law. "Nullus liber homo" says the great charters, "aliquo modo destruatur, nisi per legale judicium parium suorum aut per legem terrae."31 ["No freeman shall be deprived of life but by the lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land."] Which words, "aliquo modo destruatur," according to sir Edward Coke,32 include a prohibition not only of killing, and maiming, but also of torturing (to which our laws are strangers) and of every oppression by color of an illegal authority. And it is enacted by the statute 5 Edw. III. c. 9. that no man shall be forejudged of life of limb, contrary to the great charter and the law of the land: and again, by statute 28 Ed. III. c. 3. that no man shall be put the death, without being brought to answer by due process of law.

所以，英格兰的法令很少，共同法从不对生命和肢体施加惩罚，除非基于最高的必要性：若没有法律的明确授权，对于任何杀死或残废臣民的肆意权力而言，我们的宪法都是完全的不可思议。大宪章明确写道：“未经与其地位相当的人的合法审判或王国的法律，任何自由人都不得被剥夺生命。”“不得被剥夺生命”这些词，根据Sir爱德华•柯克的解释，不仅包括禁止杀人和使人残废，而且也包括禁止折磨（我们的法律对折磨也是陌生物）和任何以非法权力作幌子的压迫。爱德华三世（1312—1377）第5部法案第九条规定——任何人不得违背大宪章和王国的法律被剥夺生命和肢体：爱德华三世第28部法案第三条再一次规定——任何人未经正当法律程序审判不得被处死。

作者: WIND 时间: 2010-4-26 10:03

本帖最后由 WIND 于 2010-4-26 10:05 编辑

3. Besides those limbs and members that may be necessary to man, in order to defend himself or annoy his enemy, the rest of his person or body is also entitled by the same natural right to security from the corporal insults of menaces, assaults, beating, and wounding; though such insults amount not to destruction of life or member.
3. 除了一个人所必要的肢体之外，为了保护他自己或者困扰他的敌人，他人身或身体的其余部分也由同样的自然权利授予了保护其免受肉体的侵害——威胁，攻击，殴打和伤害；虽然这样的侵害还达不到毁灭生命或肢体的程度。

4. The preservation of a man' health from such practices as may prejudice or annoy it, and
4. 保护一个人的健康免受可能伤害或困扰的行为，以及

5. The security of his reputation or good name from the arts of detraction and slander, are rights to which every man is entitled, by reason and natural justice; since without these it is impossible to have the prefect enjoyment of any other advantage or right. But these three last articles (being of much less importance that those which have gone before, and those which are yet to come) it will suffice to have barely mentioned among the rights of persons; referring the more minute discussion of their several branches, to those parts of our commentaries which treat of the infringement of these rights, under the head of personal wrongs.
5. 保护他的名誉或好的名声免受贬损和诋毁的诡计，都是理性和自然正义赋予每个人的权利；因为若没有这些权利便不能完美的享受任何其它的利益或权利。但是这最后三项权利（比前面已经论述的以及接下来要论述的权利的重要性要小得多）只需在人身权利中稍微提一下便足够了；这几项更详细的讨论，请参照我们的讲座 “个人非正义”中论及对这些权利的侵害的处理方式部分。

作者: WIND 时间: 2010-4-26 13:06

II. Next to personal security, the law of England regards, asserts, and preserves the personal liberty of individuals. This personal liberty consists in the power of locomotion, of changing situation, or removing one's person to whatsoever place one's own inclination may direct; without imprisonment or restraint, unless by due course of law. Concerning which we may make the same observations as upon the preceding article; that it is a right strictly natural; that the laws of England have never abridged it without sufficient cause; and, that in this kingdom it cannot ever be abridged at the mere discretion of the magistrate, without the explicit permission of the laws.

II. 紧挨着人身保障权利，英格兰法律关注，主张并保护个体的人身自由。这种人身自由包括移动和改变处境的权力，或者依他自己的意愿迁移到任何地方的权力；未经正当法律程序，不得监禁或限制。对人身自由权利，我们可以作出和前述章节（人身保障权利）同样的评论；这是一种严格意义上的自然权利；英格兰法律若没有足够的理由从不缩减这种权利；并且，若没有法律明确的允许，在王国之内从未仅仅依管理者的个人意见而缩减它。

作者: WIND 时间: 2010-4-27 10:28

Here again the language of the great charter33 is, that no freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, but by lawful judgment of his equals, or by the law of the land. And many subsequent old statures34 expressly direct, that no man shall be taken or imprisoned by suggestion or petition to the king, or his council, unless it be by legal indictment, or the process of the common law. By the petition of right, 3 Car. I, it is enacted, that no freeman shall be imprisoned or detained without cause shown, to which he may make answer according to the law. By 17 Car.I. c. 10. if any person be restrained of his liberty by order of decree of any illegal court, or by command of the king's majesty in person, or by warrant of the council board, or of any of the privy council; he shall, upon demand of his counsel, have a writ of habeas corpus, to bring his body before the court of king's bench or common pleas; who shall determine whether the cause of his commitment be just, and thereupon do as to justice shall appertain.

大宪章是这样说的：未经与其地位相当的人的合法审判或王国的法律，任何自由人都不得被劫持或监禁。并且后续的许多古老法案明确指示：任何人不得因向国王或他的顾问团建议或请愿而被劫持或监禁，除非依合法起诉或共同法程序。通过《权利陈情书》规定：若没有明显的理由，任何自由人不得被监禁或羁押，而对于明显的理由，根据法律监禁或羁押者可能要作出答复。（根据另一条国会法律档案）如果任何人被任何非法法庭的法令，或者国王本人的指令，或者国王顾问团或任何私下的顾问团的授权，而被限制自由；他应当——在他的律师的建议下——获得一份人身保护令，从而出席王室法庭或共同上诉法庭；在这两个法庭上按照正义所要求的那样来裁决他的行为的原因是否正当。

作者: WIND 时间: 2010-4-27 10:34

如果任何人被任何非法法庭的法令，或者国王本人的指令，或者国王顾问团或任何私下的顾问团的授权，而被限制自由；他应当——在他的律师的建议下——获得一份人身保护令，从而出席王室法庭或共同上诉法庭；在这两个法庭上按照正义所要求的那样来裁决他的行为的原因是否正当。
==========================================
游云庭先生在翻译这一段的时候，把它理解为被限制自由的人出席王室法庭或上诉法庭，为的是对之前的羁押作出正当性的裁决。其实，这里的意思是：首先，毫无疑问，之前的羁押是一种非法羁押；其次，需要裁决的是被限制自由的人的被指控行为。

作者: WIND 时间: 2010-4-27 11:19

And by 31 Car. III. c. 2. commonly called the habeas corpus act, the methods of obtaining this writ are so plainly pointed out and enforced, that, so long as this statute remains unimpeached, no subject of England can be long detained in prison, except in those cases in which the law requires and justifies such detainer. And, lest this act should be evaded by demanding unreasonable bail, or sureties for the prisoner's appearance, it is declared by 1 W. & M. St. 2. c. 2. that excessive bail ought not to be required.

通过通常称之为《人身保护法案》，获得保护令的方法如此清楚的加以规定并强制实行，以致，只要这部法案继续有效，任何英格兰的臣民都不得被长期监禁，除了那些依法律要求并能证明这种监禁为正当的情况。并且，为了避免以无理的保释金或担保人为借口而避开这部法案从而阻止被监禁者出席法庭，又有相应的法案规定：不得要求过多的保释金。（以上法案条文的出处需参考英格兰国会法律档案）

作者: WIND 时间: 2010-4-30 07:56

Of great importance to the public is the preservation of this personal liberty: for if once it were left in the power of any, the highest, magistrate to imprison arbitrarily whomever he or his officers thought proper, (as in France it is daily practiced by the crown) there would soon be an end of all other rights and immunities. Some have thought, that unjust attacks, even upon life, or property, at the arbitrary will of the magistrate, are less dangerous to the commonwealth, than such as are made upon the personal liberty of the subject. To bereave a man of life, or by violence to confiscate his estate, without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious and act of despotism, as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole kingdom. But confinement of the person, by secretly hurrying him to jail, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten; is a less public, a less striking, and therefore a more dangerous engine of arbitrary government. And yet sometimes, when the state is in real danger, even this may be a necessary measure. But the happiness of our constitution is, that it is not left to the executive power to determine when the danger of the state is so great, as to render this measure expedient. For the parliament only, or legislative power, whenever it sees proper, can authorize the crown, by suspending the habeas corpus act for a short and limited time, to imprison suspected persons without giving any reason for so doing. As the senate of Rome was wont to have recourse to a dictator, a magistrate of absolute authority, when they judged the republic in any imminent danger. The decree of the senate, which usually preceded the nomination of this magistrate, "dent operam consules, ne quid respublica detrimenti capiat" ["let the consuls take care that the commonwealth receive no injury"] was called the senatus consultum ultimae necessitatis [Senate decrees in special emergency]. In like manner this experiment ought only to be tried in cases of extreme emergency; and in these that nation parts with its liberty for a while, in order to preserve it for ever.

这种人身自由的保护对于公众而言重要性非常巨大：因为如果一旦将肆意监禁他认为应当监禁的人的权力交给国王或者他的官员，（如同法国国王每天所做的那样）那么很快其它权利和豁免权都将面临末日。有些人认为：对共同体而言，依管理者不受约束的意志，即使是对生命或者财产的非正义攻击，也要比对臣民的人身自由的攻击的危险性小。未经起诉或审判而剥夺一个人的生命，或者暴力抢劫他的财产，如此的不加遮拦和臭名远扬的独裁行为，立即就会将暴政的警报传遍整个王国。但是通过秘密的匆忙的将一个人送进监狱而限制其人身，在那里他的遭遇将不为人知或者被人遗忘；这种行为公开性小，不怎么引人注目，所以是独裁政府更加危险的一种引擎。当然有时候，当国家真的处于危险之中，即使是限制人身自由也可能成为一种必要的措施。但是我们宪法的幸运之处在于：它并未交由执行权力来决定什么时候国家的危险达到了这种措施变为适宜的程度。因为只有国会或曰立法权力，在它认为适当的时候，才能授予国王在短暂和有限的时期内中止《人身保护法案》的权力，监禁嫌疑人而无需给出任何这样做的理由。如同古罗马的参议院，当他们断定共和国即将面临任何危险的时候，习惯于依靠一个独裁者——一个拥有绝对权力的管理者。通常在这样的授权令之前有一个参议院的法令叫作“参议院特别紧急状况法令”，说道：“执政官务必谨慎，不要让共同体受到损害。”类似的方式，在我们王国这种尝试仅仅在非常紧急的情况下才被允许；这时国家虽然与它的自由短暂的分离，为的是永远的保护自由。

作者: WIND 时间: 2010-4-30 15:39

The confinement of the person, in any wise, is an imprisonment. So that the keeping a man against his will in a private house, putting him in the stocks, arresting or forcibly detaining him in the street, is an imprisonment.35 And the law so much discourages unlawful confinement, that if a man is under duress of imprisonment, which we before explained to mean a compulsion by an illegal restraint of liberty, until he seals a bond or the like; he may allege this duress, and avoid the extorted bond. But if a man be lawfully imprisoned, and either to procure his discharge, or on any other fair account, seals a bond or a deed, this is not by duress of imprisonment, and he is not at liberty to avoid it.36 To make imprisonment lawful, it must either be, by process from the courts of judicature, or by warrant from some legal officer, having authority to commit to prison; which warrant must be in writing, under the hand and seal of the magistrate, and express the causes of the commitment, in order to be examined into (if necessary) upon a habeas corpus. If there be no cause expressed, the jailer is not bound to detain the prisoner.37 For the law judges in this respect, says sir Edward Coke, like Festus the Roman governor; that it is unreasonable to send a prisoner, and not to signify withal the crimes alleged against him.

任何方式的人身限制，都是一种监禁。所以，违背一个人的意志而将他扣留在屋子里，或关闭在储藏室，或在街上强制拘捕他，都是监禁。法律如此反对非法限制，以致，如果一个人只有被迫签订契约或此类的东西才能脱离监禁强迫——我们在之前已经解释了这是通过对自由的非法限制的强迫——的话；事后他可以指控这种强迫并免除这份被迫签订的契约。但是如果一个人是被合法监禁，为了获释或基于其它公正的理由而订立契约，这不是监禁强迫，便不能自由的免除契约的约束。为了使监禁合法，必须经由审判法庭的程序，或者通过某些法定官员的授权，从而获得权力去实施监禁；这份授权必须由官员亲笔签发并加盖印章，并明确陈述监禁的理由，以备按人身保护法案进行审查（如有必要）。如果没有明确的理由，那么监狱职员则没有看守的责任。Sir爱德华•柯克说：因为在这方面，法官就像古罗马总督菲斯特斯一样；若没有表明指控的罪行而监禁一个人是不合理的。

欢迎光临燕谈 (http://www.yantan.us/bbs/)