* * * Suppose A. to have lent B. a thousand pounds, as a
capital to commence trade, and that, when he purchased his stock to
this amount, and lodged it in his warehouse, a fire were to break out
in the next dwelling, and, extending itself to 'his' warehouse, were
to consume the whole of his property, and reduce him to a state of
utter ruin. If A., my client, were to ask my opinion as to his right
to recover from B., I should tell him that this his right would exist
should B. ever be in a condition to repay the sum borrowed; * * * but
that to attempt to recover a thousand pounds from a man thus reduced
by accident to utter ruin, and who had not a shilling left in the
world, would be 'as foolish as it was tyrannical'.
But this is rank sophistry. The question is:--Does a thief (and a
fraudulent debtor is no better) acquire a claim to impunity by not
possessing the power of restoring the goods? Every moral act derives
its character (says a Schoolman with an unusual combination of
profundity with quaintness) 'aut voluntate originis aut origine
voluntatis'. Now the very essence of guilt, its dire and
incommunicable character, consists in its tendency to destroy the free
will;--but when thus destroyed, are the habits of vice thenceforward
innocent? Does the law excuse the murder because the perpetrator was
drunk? Dr. Hawker put his objection laxly and weakly enough; but a
manly opponent would have been ashamed to seize an hour's victory from
what a move of the pen would render impregnable.
Pages:
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353