(_For the Mirror_.)
The Egyptians were exceedingly exact about the administration of
justice, believing that the support or dissolution of society altogether
depended upon that. Their highest tribunal was composed of thirty
judges. They placed at the head of this tribunal the person who at once
possessed the greatest share of wisdom, knowledge, and love of the laws,
and public esteem. The king furnished the judges with every thing
necessary for their support, so that the people had justice rendered
them without expense. _No advocates were allowed_ in this tribunal. The
parties were not even allowed to plead their own causes. All trials were
carried on _in writing_, and the parties themselves drew up their own
cases. Those who had settled this manner of proceeding well knew that
the eloquence of advocates _very often darkened the truth, and misled
the judge_. They were unwilling to expose the ministers of justice to
the deceitful charms of pathetic, affecting orations. The Egyptians
avoided this by making each party draw up the statement of his own case
in writing, and they allowed a competent time for that purpose.[8] But
to prevent the protracting of suits too long, each party was only
allowed one reply. When all the evidence necessary for their information
was given to the judges, they began their consultation. When the affair
was thoroughly canvassed, the president gave the signal for proceeding
to a sentence, by taking in his hand a little image adorned with
precious stones, which hung to a chain of gold about his neck. This
image had no eyes, and was the symbol with which the Egyptians used to
represent Truth. Judgment being given, the president touched the party
who had gained the cause with this image. This was the form of
pronouncing sentence. According to an ancient law, the kings of Egypt
administered an oath to the judges at their installation, that if the
king should command them to give an unjust sentence, they would not obey
him.
[8] All this must be understood with some limitations, otherwise
we must suppose that all the inhabitants of Egypt had not only
learned to write, but that they had sufficient talents and
knowledge of the laws, to draw up their own defences, which is
not to be supposed. This law then must have been liable to some
exceptions and modifications. We must say the same thing of
other countries where they tell us there are no advocates, and
that all trials are carried on in writing, as in Siam, China,
Bantam, &c. _Origin of Laws, G.M. Gognet_.
* * * * *