in the manner by which the present Chinese Code at its inception and Justinian's Codes were formed respectively (v. preface to original Chinese Code of present dynasty A. D. 1647) in either case a solicitous Emperor being aided by distinguished scholars. And of other likenesses in this connection: between the discouragement of publications additional to the Chinese Code (save by authority), and such. in Rome: between between the Li, and enactments supplementary to the Justinian Code: between the respective manners of legislating by edicts, decrèes, and rescripts. And next of the stated law the comparison being also chiefly with mature Roman Law. As regards the law touching relationship in China and the conditions prevailing between parent and child (the doctrine of potestas being highly developed in China - cf. filial piety), husband and wife, master and slaves and freedmen, master and pupil and again on such general points as adoption, and copartnership of relations in the family estate. Again as regards the Law of Property, many of the Chinese principles hereon resemble the Roman, even to such comparatively minor points as accession and alluvion but the nature of the various estates in general differs. Further touching contracts generally: there are mutual resemblances in the principles, such as --- agreement, fraud, duress, and the mode of regarding the doctrine of consideration: and there are additional resemblances between the respective varieties of contracts contracts re, verbis, literis, and consensu, all exist in Chinese law. Agency is however fully recognised in China, whereas it was not so in Rome* Again, as regards delicts, there is the same distinction in both systems between wrongs to the person and wrongs to property between injuria and damnum injuria. And there is also in this connection an analogy in the manner in which, according to both systems, a slave was assimilated to property. Again, of specific offences, there is the same comprehensiveness of the offence of larceny -touching e.g. embezzlement: between tao or larceny in China, and furtum in Rome: there is even the close analogy between the general division of the offence in both systems between ch'ich tao (tao by stealth, theft) and ch'iang tao (open tao, robbery) in China, and furtum manifestum or nec manifestum in Rome. As regards procedure and administration there are also points akin: of administration, perhaps between the ch'êng shên chih kuan or sitting magistrate in China, and the judex — and the remedies for injustice lying against both functionaries: of procedure, certainly in such points as appeal both states the appeal resting ultimately with the in Emperor, but commonly with a select Board (the Judiciary Board in China, the consistorium in Rome). Finally there is the general position and condition of the professional class in China at the present day not very dissimilar to its position in Rome prior to Diocletian. - Such are a few of the analogies between two at first sight very different systems. But the comparison. is not intended to be pressed too closely, or possibly two or three very incorrect conclusions will be evolved by the ingenious for instance, that the Chinese system is behind the times: or possibly even that China has been much indebted to Rome or vice versa. No, the curious points are not these, but this that two races shut off from each other should have thought and moved much alike. The Chinese system is not behind the times of China but is admirably suited to them; nor is the system. an ancient curiosity or relic but the evolved production of 4000 years. APPENDIX III LIST OF CHINESE WORKS RECOMMENDED TO THE ATTENTION OF THE STUDENT edition should be "The Fundamental Laws and procured. "Supplementary Statutes of the "Ch'ing (present) dynasty”. Reference to the following is also instructive: Ta Ching Lü 大清律 "The Fundamental Laws of the -- An edition with preface by the Emperor Shun Chih, bearing date circa 1646, is fairly easily procurable. |