and on principles fo connected with the good of the community, it is that the citizens and freemen remonstrate against the sentence paffed by the Magnificent Council on Mr. John James Rouffeau, and two of his books, without having either been fummoned or heard, notwithftanding the express meaning of the 88th article of our ecclefiaftical edias."

"The citizens and freemen having been informed, that Mr. John James Rouffeau had renounced his right of freedom and of citizen, on account of the above decree of the Magnificent Council against him and his works, have examined the faid decree, and find Mr. Rouffeau's complaint of fuch treatment wellfounded, as they propose to prove." The decree of the Magnificent Council, iffued without any previous, though requifite formalities, condemns two of Mr. John James Rouffeau's books, viz. Emilius and the Social Contract, as rash, fcandalons, impious, tending to fubvert the Chriftian Religion, and all forms of government. That decree, therefore, regards two fubjects, Religion,

and Government.

"For fo much as concerns Religion, the 88th article of our ecclefiaftical edits, in the chapter Of the Confiftory, fays, "If any one dogmatizes against the received docrine, let him be cited to appear in order to confer with him: If he retracts, let him be endured without fcandalizing or defaming him: If obftinate, let him be admonished several times, to try to make him conform If it appears at length, that greater severity is requifite, let the holy facrament be refufed him, and let the magiftrates be acquainted

2

therewith, in order to fee it put in execution."

"Mr. Rouffeau, however, has not been cited to the confistory, but the Magnificent Council pro ceeded immediately against him: he ought to have been endured without being defamed, but he has been branded in the most defamatory manner, his two books having been torn in pieces and burnt by the hands of the executioner. The edi&t, therefore, has not been obferved, either in regard to the confiftory, whofe jurifdiction it was to enquire into that matter, or to Mr. Rouffeau himself, who ought to have been cited, endured without being fcandalized or defamed, admonished feveral times, and who could not be condemned but in a cafe of contumacy. That edict is by itself very plain, and the procedure against John Morelli in the year 1563, leaves no manner of doubt concerning its meaning."

"With refpect to government, the citizens and freemen, fo far from having found in the courfe of their enquiries, that Mr. Rouffeau's works have a tendency to fubvert that form which they are bound to prize, have, on the contrary, obferved, with true fatisfaction, that the illuftrious author lets flip no opportunity of founding its praife. He declares at the very beginning of his Social Contra&, that as of tenas he confiders the subject of government, be effeems himself happy to find always Some new argument to make him love that of his own country. That book, therefore, cannot be condemned by the Magnificent Council, as tending to fubvert our government; and, as it was printed out of our territory, it can only be confidered

amengft

amongst those books treating of natural and political rights, in regard to which the laws give no power to the Magnificent Council, and which have always been publickly fold in our city. As our government fears no examination, fo our laws have fet up no inquifition. The citizens and freemen are too firmly attached to our conftitution to be feduced by maxims oppofite to it. Hence not even a foreigner, writing in our state on general matters, though he broaches fome dangerous notions, has ever yet been branded on that account. Mr. Rouffeau, who highly values his country's form of government, ought not to have been thus unfavourably distinguished; and his quality of citizen ought to have entitled him the more to the enjoyment of publick liberty."

"But if even the Social Contract had attacked our conftitution, if it had even been printed on our territory; the fentence againft the book and the writer would neverthelefs be illegal, fince Mr. Rouffeau has never been cited to appear, or heard in his defence. Such procedure is equally inconfiftent with the natural right of all nations, and with our laws, which exprefsly require that по one be condemned without having been heard in his defence, or duly called upon to defend himfelf, and which forbid to condemn him until after the third default in appearance. Mr. Rouffeau's name was indeed prefixed to Emilius, and the Social Contract; it might neverthelefs have happened that he was not the author. The Magnificent council could not even order him to be taken into cuftody before judicial proofs were taken of the

fact; otherwife no man could be fafe from that kind of disgrace, and the grievous confequences refulting therefrom with regard to liberty, as there is no one whofe name may not be borrowed. And although Mr. Rouffeau has not been condemned in his perfon, he has been fo in his works. No book can be thus branded without branding the author whofe name it bears, and fuch an ignominy cannot be inflicted on a citizen unheard. The citizens and freemen may here borrow the expreffions of the celebrated Montefquieu, being fenfibly affected with their force: "In mild governments, fays he, where the life of the leaft citizen is confiderable, nothing is detracted from his honour but after a long examination. In republicks, as many formalities are at the leaft required as in monarchies; in both governments they are multiplied in proportion to the esteem in which the honour, wealth, and liberty of the citizens are held."

"Such are the grievances of the citizens and freemen, in behalf of Mr. Rouffeau. They hope that the Magnificent Council will redress them for the fake of the maintenance of the laws, and out of regard for good order and juftice. That is the purport of their demands; but they declare at the fame time, that a barely negative refolution, far from invalidating thefe dutiful remonftrances, would add new force to them."

that as the laws furnish every perfon all reasonable means to defend themfelves, and propofe their exceptions of whatever nature they may be, and as dicifions in criminal cafes are ultimately awarded by the fyndicks and council, (excepting application on the mercy of the council of two hundred) there is no other method left in favour of a condemned perfon befides that of applying perfonally to this laft council, or furrendering himself a voluntary prifoner, if he has been declared contumacious: that confequently every other method of appealing from a criminal fentence pronounced by the fyndicks and council, or of demanding reparation and redrefs of grievances refulting from fuch a fentence, is contrary to our laws, and might prove of the most fatal confequences to publick tranquility. The council then proceeds in the following man

ner:

"Nevertheless the council, on account of its love for religion fuperior to all things, and to leave no doubts concerning the purity of its intentions, and the regularity of its determinations, is refolved to explain its motives of action relating to the matters complained of in the remonstrances."

"With respect to the fentence paffed and executed, in the month of June of the last year, against two books bearing the name of John James Rouffeau, and the refolution taken against his perfon, it has been declared, That the council having examined, and caufed to be examined, thofe works, and having attended to the conclufions of their attorney-general, found that under the appearance of doubts, there Sept. 1763.

had been collected whatever may tend to undermine, shake, and subvert the chief foundations of the Chriftian revealed religion, and to infpire the most fatal fentiments; even fo far as to say that it must be a mistake to name a Chriftian Republic, thefe two words being incon

fiftent with each other."

"That thofe books appeared the more dangerous and reprehenfible, as they are wrote in French, and in the most engaging language, under the name and quality of a citizen of Geneva; and as, according to the author's plan, Emilius ought to ferve as a guide to parents, and all thofe that are entrusted with the inftruction of youth."

"That in fuch circumftances the magistracy of Geneva, whofe most facred duty it is to maintain the honour and glory of God, and to prevent every attempt against the holy evangelical reformation, could not have been filent without betraying that duty; and that it must have been the cause of great offence, if they had delayed making known their juft indignation against fuch works, which, by being diffused, might lead aftray many readers from the true Chriftian faith, the fureft foundation, doubtlefs, of our fpiritual and temporal welfare.

"That the fentence fo paffed and executed against thofe works was therefore juft and neceffary.

"That it is no ways tranfgreffing the rule by which no one is to be condemned unheard, to condemn books after having read and fufficiently examined them; that fuch an examination, and the conviction refulting from it, is the only requifite and ufual method of condemning books; and that we have this PPP

ufa_e

ufage in common with other nations which condemn no one unheard.

"The 88th article of the ecclefiaftical edicts is applicable to a dogmatizer only; and not to a decifion concerning a book fubverfive of the Chriftian religion; a book whofe crime ever exifts, and is renewed and aggravated in proportion to the number of readers it feduces.

"That the duty the council owes to the fupport of the Chriftian religion in its purity, to the publick good, to the laws, and to the dignity of our government, forbids it to alter or weaken that fentence, which was pronounced unanimoufly, and without the leaft doubt arifing in the minds of the judges, either with regard to its motives or its

form.

"That it was impoffible while the council condemned those books, not to have an eye on their prefumed author, our then citizen: That the refolution taken the fame day against his perfon, if he should come within our jurifdiction, is neither a judgment nor a sentence, but a barely provifional appoint ment, which did not over-rule a plea of exceptions from Mr. Roufseau, and might have been preparatory to the procedure required by our ecclefiaftical laws."

The council comes next to touch upon the other articles of the remonftrances, and fays, among other things, that an object of private intereft cannot be the fubject of a publick remonftrance, after which it concludes its answer in thefe words:

"Upon the whole, the council cannot help expreffing its extreme furprize and forrow at the fight of

the remonftrances, which impute to it the having infringed the laws of the republick, and the liberty of the Citizens. If the pureft zeal for, and the niceft attention to, the fupport of our happy conftitution, the prefervation of the liberty of each individual, and the due obfervance of the Chriftian religion, may entitle it to fome fhare of publick gratitude, it is confident of having deferved it. May God pour out his fpirit of light and peace on our dear country!"

THE anfwer from the council of

Geneva, to the remonftrances of the citizens and freemen, was foon after replied to in the following manner:

Moft humble and most dutiful Remonftrances to the firft Syndick. THE answer given by the

magnificent council, the 25th day of June laft, to the remonftrances delivered the 18th of the fame month, to the first syndick, by fome of the citizens and freemen, could not but be the cause of forrow to them; inasmuch, as the magnificent council refufes to grant the two firft heads of remonftrances, from reafons, as they think, contrary to our conftitution and our laws. They find themfelves, therefore, indifpenfibly obliged to offer thefe new, and most dutiful remonftrances, with a view to demonftrate that the magnificent council's refufal is unfupported by good arguments. They are in hopes of throwing fuch light on the proofs of their allegations, that there fhall he no further roo:n for the magnificent council to refuse granting their demands: And thus

the

the rights of the citizens and freemen, with regard to thofe objects, being firmly fettled, the fentences and imprifonments complained of may not be cited as precedents in

after-times.

They begin with praying the magnificent council to confider that the non-obfervance of the laws may i felf become of fatal confequence to public tranquility; and that though the edit orders that the judgments paid in the last refort fhall be executed without of position, yet the oath of the citizens impofes on them this duty, to preferve inviolate the liberties, privileges, cuftoms, larus, ordinances, ana ftatutes of the city. Every citizen becoming thereby a guardian and preferver of the law, has a right, nay, is under an obligation, to oppofe whatever is contrary to it, by complaints, requests, propofals, and Temonftr inces to the fyndick, or to the attorney-general: confequently the remonttrances of the citizens and freemen, concerning the judgments they complain of, fo far from being in direct oppofition to our laws, are agreeable thereto.

Now, to prove that the law has not been obferved in the fentence paffed against two of Mr. John James Ruffeau's books, as being contrary to the chriftian religion and to government; and alfo in the fentence against his perfon, the citizens and freemen having grounded their arguments.

1. On the 88th article of our ecclefiaftical edicts.

2. On the nature of our conftitution, and the freedom established in our city, concerning writings on Jaw and politicks.

3. On principals of natural right, and on that law which orders that

no one shall be condemned unfummoned and unheard.

The citizens and freemen having examined, with all requifite attention, the answer of the magnificent council to the above arguments, obferve,

In the first place, That, fetting afide an examination of Mr. Rouffeau's books, they have barely faid, in their firft remonftrances, that if thofe books appeared cenfurable, and dangerous to the cause of religion, they ought to be referred to the confiftory, as alone entrusted with the police and ecclefiaftical difcipline. Surely, if any thing feems to be competent to its jurifdiction, it must be a book in which the magnificent council finds that under the appearance of doubts, there has been collected whatever may tend to the undermining, fhaking, and fubverting of the chief foundations of the chriftian religion.' An examination and enquiry into this matter belong much rather to the minifters of the gofpel, than to the magnificent council, or even the fcholiafts,, whofe power is unprefcribed by the edict,

The law fo pofitively leaves to the confiftory the firft cognizance of whatever relates to religion, that it refers even matrimonial causes to it, though more directly belonging to the civil order, than to religion.

If any doubt could remain on that head, the example of John Morelli, alledged in our remonftrances, and which the magnificent council has taken no notice of, might fuffice to remove it.

The ecclefiaftical ordinances received their fanction in a general council, on the 13th day of No vember 1561; and in the year PPP 4

1564