violated it, and confesses that he has done so, still comes forward and defends his conduct.  Then he must invalidate the defence when his opponent says that the writer meant one thing and wrote another, and say that it is intolerable that the meaning of the framer of the law should be explained by any one else in preference to the law itself.  Why did he write down such words if he did not mean them?  Why does the opponent, while he neglects what is plainly written, bring forward what is not written anywhere?  Why should he think that men who were most careful in what they wrote are to be convicted of extreme folly?  What could have hindered the framer of this law from making this exception which the opponent contends that he intended to make, if he really had intended it?  He will then bring forward those instances where the same writer has made a similar exception, or if he cannot do that, at least he will cite cases where others have made similar exceptions.  For a reason must be sought for, if it is possible to find one, why this exception was not made in this case.  The law must be stated to be likely to be unjust, or useless, or else that there is a reason for obeying part of it, and for abrogating part; it must be that the argument of the opponent and the law are at variance.  And then, by way of amplification, it will be proper, both in other parts of the speech, and above all in the peroration, to speak with great dignity and energy about the desirableness of maintaining the laws, and of the danger with which all public and private affairs are threatened.

XXXIX.  But he who defends himself by appeals to the spirit and intention of the law, will urge that the force of the law depends on the mind and design of the framer, not on words and letters.  And he will praise him for having mentioned no exceptions in his law, so as to leave no refuge for offences, and so as to bind the judge to interpret the intention of the law according to the actions of each individual.  Then he must cite instances in which all equity will be disturbed if the words of the law are attended to and not the meaning.  Then all cunning and false accusation must be endeavoured to be put before the judge in an odious light, and complaints uttered in a tone of indignation.  If the action in question has been done unintentionally, or by accident, or by compulsion, rather than in consequence of any premeditation,—­and actions of those kinds we have already discussed,—­then it will be well to use the same topics of equity to counteract the effect of the harshness of the language.