[原创] 布莱克斯通的《英格兰法律解释》翻译

WIND

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。

WIND

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。

WIND

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。

WIND

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。

WIND

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）。

WIND

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。

WIND

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。

WIND

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。

WIND

华盛顿特区联邦最高法院前面的布莱克斯通塑像

eric

能否解释一下“新教徒”？

eric

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”？

WIND

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?

WIND

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。

WIND

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。

WIND

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。

eric

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。

WIND

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。

WIND

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。

WIND

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。

WIND

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。

WIND

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。

WIND

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。

WIND

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。

WIND

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。

eric

common law 翻译成“共同法”？

WIND

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

WIND

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）。

WIND

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。

WIND

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。

WIND

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。