In warm climates, where despotic power generally prevails, the
passions disclose themselves earlier, and are sooner extinguished;
[43]
the understanding is sooner ripened; they are less in danger of
squandering their fortunes; there is less facility of distinguishing
themselves in the world; less communication between young people, who
are confined at home; they marry much earlier, and consequently may be
sooner of age than in our European climates. In Turkey they are of age
at fifteen.
[44]
They have no such thing as a cession of goods; in a government where
there is no fixed property, people depend rather on the person than on
his estate.
The cession of goods is naturally admitted in moderate governments,
[45]
but especially in republics, because of the greater confidence usually
placed in the probity of the citizens, and the lenity and moderation arising
from a form of government which every subject seems to nave preferred to all
others.
Had the legislators of the Roman republic established the cession of
goods,
[46]
they never would have been exposed to so many seditions and
civil discords; neither would they have experienced the danger of the
evils, nor the inconvenience of the remedies.
Poverty and the precariousness of property in a despotic state
render usury natural, each person raising the value of his money in
proportion to the danger he sees in lending it. Misery therefore pours
from all parts into those unhappy countries; they are bereft of
everything, even of the resource of borrowing.
Hence it is that a merchant under this government is unable to carry
on an extensive commerce; he lives from hand to mouth; and were he to
encumber himself with a large quantity of merchandise, he would lose
more by the exorbitant interest he must give for money than he could
possibly get by the goods. Hence they have no laws here relating to
commerce; they are all reduced to what is called the bare police.
A government cannot be unjust without having hands to exercise its
injustice. Now, it is impossible but that these hands will be grasping
for themselves. The embezzling of the public money is therefore natural
in despotic states.
As this is a common crime under such a government, confiscations are
very useful. By these the people are eased; the money drawn by this
method being a considerable tribute which could hardly be raised on the
exhausted subject: neither is there in those countries any one family
which the prince would be glad to preserve.
In moderate governments it is quite a different thing. Confiscations
would render property uncertain, would strip innocent children, would
destroy a whole family, instead of punishing a single criminal. In
republics they would be attended with the mischief of subverting
equality, which is the very soul of this government, by depriving a
citizen of his necessary subsistence.
[47]
There is a Roman law
[48]
against confiscations, except in the case of crimen majestatis,
or high treason of the most heinous nature. It would be a prudent thing to follow
the spirit of this law, and to limit confiscations to particular crimes.
In countries where a local custom has rendered real estates alienable, Bodin
very justly observes that confiscations should extend only to such as are purchased or
acquired.
[49]
