Tan calf spine with  blue marbled boards. Rebacked By Castle Bindery and in a presentation box. Dimensions are for the box.

• We provide an in-depth photographic presentation of this item to stimulate your feeling and touch. More traditional book descriptions are immediately available

• Note: This book carries a £5.00 discount to those that subscribe to the F.B.A. mailing list

As the photographs show, the main defect of this most rare first edition is a little foxing on the title page on volume one. Otherwise, these volumes are painstakingly restored and boxed by craftsman bookbinder Mr Brian Cole. Note: by chance, these two volumes were rediscovered in Portugal in 2023.

Bryant Barrett was an English solicitor / attorney and member of Gray’s Inn. His superb translation is noteworthy in part because it was published the year the Code was enacted. As such, it has the advantage of being in a style of English that is an idiomatic contemporary to the original French. Bryant Barrett, a Roman Catholic, is speculated to have had strong Italian / French connections with his family holding the Italian ‘Dukedom of Bronte’ originally awarded on 10 October 1799 at Palermo to the British Royal Navy officer Horatio Nelson by King Ferdinand III of Sicily, in gratitude for Horatio Nelson, who saved the kingdom of Sicily from conquest by Revolutionary French forces under Napoleon. That said, Sicily was an early adoptee of the Code Napoleon.

This is the First English Translation of the Code Napoleon, With an Influential Introduction by Barrett, Bryant, Translator. The Code Napoleon, Verbally Translated From the French: To Which is Prefixed an Introductory Discourse, Containing a Succinct Account of the Civil Regulations, Comprised in the Jewish Law, the Ordinances of Menu, the Ta Tsing Leu Lee, the Zend Avesta, the Laws of Solon, the Twelve Tables of Rome, the Laws of the Barbarians, the Assises of Jerusalem, and the Koran. Originally published: London: W. Reed, 1811. Two volumes.

Bryant Barrett was an English attorney and member of Gray’s Inn. His superb translation is noteworthy in part because it was published the year the Code was enacted. As such, it has the advantage of being in a style of English that is an idiomatic contemporary to the original French. Many scholars believe that this is the finest translation of the Code. Indeed, they have found it to be more accurate than the official Louisiana edition. The philological basis of his 393-page introduction had a profound influence on the subsequent development of classical British legal ethnography. Barrett’s index, which follows the style of English lawyer’s common-place books and abridgments, is a thorough guide to the Code.

The Napoleonic Code (French: Code Napoléon), officially the Civil Code of the French (French: Code civil des Français; simply referred to as Code civil), is the French civil code established during the French Consulate in 1804 and still in force in France, although heavily and frequently amended since its inception. Although Napoleon himself was not directly involved in the drafting of the Code, as it was drafted by a commission of four eminent jurists, he chaired many of the commission’s plenary sessions, and his support was crucial to its enactment.

The code, with its stress on clearly written and accessible law, was a major milestone in the abolition of the previous patchwork of feudal laws. Historian Robert Holtman regards it as one of the few documents that have influenced the whole world.

The Napoleonic Code was not the first legal code to be established in a European country with a civil-law legal system; it was preceded by the Codex Maximilianeus bavaricus civilis (Bavaria, 1756), the Allgemeines Landrecht (Prussia, 1794), and the West Galician Code (Galicia, then part of Austria, 1797).It was, however, the first modern legal code to be adopted with a pan-European scope, and it strongly influenced the law of many of the countries formed during and after the Napoleonic Wars. The Napoleonic Code influenced developing countries outside Europe attempting to modernise and defeudalise their countries through legal reforms, such as those in the Middle East, while in Latin America the Spanish and Portuguese had established their own versions of the civil code.

History: The categories of the Napoleonic Code were not drawn from earlier French law, but instead from Justinian’s sixth-century codification of Roman law, the Corpus Juris Civilis, and within it, the Institutes. The Institutes divide into the law of:

1. persons

2. things

3. actions.

Similarly, the Napoleonic Code divided the law into four sections:

1. persons

2. property

3. acquisition of property

4. civil procedure (moved into a separate code in 1806).

Prior codification attempts: Before the Napoleonic Code, France did not have a single set of laws; law consisted mainly of local customs, sometimes officially compiled in “custumals” (coutumes), notably the Custom of Paris. There were also exemptions, privileges, and special charters granted by kings or other feudal lords. With the Revolution, the last vestiges of feudalism were abolished.

Specifically, as to civil law, the many different bodies of law used in different parts of France were to be replaced by a single legal code. The Constituent Assembly on 5 October 1790 voted for a codification of French laws, the Constitution of 1791 promised one, and the National Assembly adopted a unanimous resolution on 4 September 1791 providing that “there shall be a code of civil laws common for the entire realm.” However, it was the National Convention in 1793 which established a special commission headed by Jean-Jacques-Régis de Cambacérès to oversee the drafting process.

His drafts of 1793 (for which Cambacérès had been given a one month deadline), 1794, and 1796 were all rejected by a National Convention and the French Directory of the time was more preoccupied with the turmoil resulting from various wars and strife with other European powers. The first draft contained 719 articles and was very revolutionary, but was rejected for being too technical and criticised for not being radical or philosophical enough. The second, with only 297 articles, was rejected for being too brief and was criticised for being a mere manual of morals. The third, expanded to 1,104 articles, was presented under the conservative Directory regime, but never even came up for discussion.

Another commission, established in December 1799 established a fourth outline drafted in part by Jean-Ignace Jacqueminot [fr] (1754–1813). Jacqueminot’s draft, the so-called loi Jacqueminot, dealt almost exclusively with persons and emphasised the need to reform the divorce laws, to strengthen parental authority and increase the testator’s freedom to dispose of the free portion of his estate. It was rejected.

Napoleonic reforms: Napoleon’s victory at the Battle of Marengo allowed him to consolidate his power in France. Returning to Paris, he appointed on 12 August 1800 a commission of distinguished jurists and politicians, including fr:Jacques de Maleville, François Denis Tronchet, Félix-Julien-Jean Bigot de Préameneu, Jean-Étienne-Marie Portalis to draft a civil code. For this commission, Cambacérès (now Second Consul), and Napoleon himself chaired the plenary sessions. After this process finished, the Code was sent to the Legislative Body as a preliminary bill in December 1801, where it was rejected by a vote of 142 to 139. In response, Napoleon announced on 2 January 1802 that he was suspending all projects, effectively closing the assemblies’ sessions; simultaneously, he went to the Sénat conservateur to berate its members. These tactics cowed the legislature into submission, and gave Napoleon the majority he needed. The code finally came into effect on 21 March 1804.

The process developed mainly out of the various customs, but was inspired by Justinian’s sixth-century codification of Roman law, the Corpus Juris Civilis and, within that, Justinian’s Code (Codex). The Napoleonic Code, however, differed from Justinian’s in important ways:

• it incorporated all kinds of earlier rules, not just legislation;

• it was not a collection of edited extracts, but a comprehensive rewrite;

• its structure was much more rational;

• it had no religious content

• it was written in the vernacular.

The Napoleonic Code marked a fundamental change in the nature of the civil law legal system, making laws clearer and more accessible. It also superseded the former conflict between royal legislative power and, particularly in the final years before the Revolution, protests by judges representing views and privileges of the social classes to which they belonged. Such conflict led the Revolutionaries to take a negative view of judges making law.

This is reflected in the Napoleonic Code provision prohibiting judges from deciding a case by way of introducing a general rule (Article 5), since the creation of general rules is an exercise of legislative and not of judicial power. In theory, there is thus no case law in France. However, the courts still had to fill in the gaps in the laws and regulations and, indeed, were prohibited from refusing to do so (Article 4). Moreover, both the code and legislation have required judicial interpretation. Thus a vast body of case law has come into existence, but without any rule of stare decisis.

Contents of the Napoleonic Code: The preliminary article of the code established certain important provisions regarding the rule of law. Laws could be applied only if they had been duly promulgated, and then only if they had previously been officially published (including provisions for publishing delays, given the means of communication available at the time). In brief, no secret laws were authorised. It prohibited ex post facto laws (i.e. laws that apply to events that occurred before their introduction). The code also prohibited judges from refusing to do justice on grounds of the insufficiency of the law, thereby encouraging them to interpret the law. On the other hand, it also prohibited judges from making general judgements of a legislative nature (see above).

With regard to family, the code established the supremacy of the husband over his wife and children, the status quo in Europe at the time. Women had even fewer rights than children. Divorce by mutual consent was abolished in 1804.

Other French Napoleonic-era codes: The draft Military Code was presented to Napoleon by the special commission headed by Pierre Daru in June 1805; however, as the War of the Third Coalition progressed, the code was put aside and never implemented.

In 1791, Louis Michel le Peletier de Saint-Fargeau presented a new criminal code to the National Constituent Assembly. He explained that it outlawed only “true crimes”, and not “phony offences created by superstition, feudalism, the tax system, and [royal] despotism”. He did not list the crimes “created by superstition”. The new penal code did not mention blasphemy, heresy, sacrilege, witchcraft, incest, or homosexuality, which led to these former offences being swiftly decriminalised. In 1810, a new criminal code was issued under Napoleon. As with the Penal Code of 1791, it did not contain provisions for religious crimes, incest, or homosexuality.

• After an overhaul of the entire legal system, the new code of civil procedure was adopted in 1806.

• The commercial code (code de commerce [fr]) was adopted in 1807. The kernel of the commercial code is the Book III, “Of The Different Modes of Acquiring Property”, of the Napoleonic Code, which sets out norms for contracts and transactions.

• Code d’instruction: In 1808, the code d’instruction criminelle was published, laying out criminal procedure. The parlement system from before the Revolution, had been much abused, and the criminal courts established by the Revolution were complex and ineffective, subject to many local pressures. The genesis of this code resulted in much debate and the basis of the modern inquisitorial system of criminal courts in France and many civil law countries. It has significantly changed since, especially with regard to the rights of the defendant.

The French Revolution’s Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen enunciated the presumption of innocence until found guilty. Concerned by the possibility of arbitrary arrest and detention, or excessive remand, Napoleon remarked that care should be taken to preserve personal freedoms, especially before the Imperial Court: “these courts would have a great strength, they should be prohibited from abusing this situation against weak citizens without connections.” However, remand was still usual for defendants suspected of serious crimes such as murder.

The possibility of lengthy remand periods was one criticism, particularly voiced in common law countries, of the Napoleonic Code and its de facto presumption of guilt. Another reason was the combination of magistrate and prosecutor into a single role. However, with the work of the juge d’instruction accomplished, the trial itself did not have the same de jure presumption of guilt; for instance, the juror’s oath explicitly required jurors not betray the interests of the defendants or ignore their defence.

The rules governing court proceedings gave significant power to the prosecution; however, criminal justice in European countries in those days tended to repression. For instance, it was only in 1836 that prisoners charged with a felony were given a formal right to counsel in England. In comparison, article 294 of the Napoleonic Code of Criminal Procedure allowed the defendant access to a lawyer before a Cour d’assises, and mandated the court to appoint a lawyer for the defendants who did not have one. (Failing to do so nullified the proceedings.)

Whether or not the Cour d’assises, which judges severe crimes, should operate with a jury was a topic of considerable controversy. Napoleon supported jury trials (or petit jury), and they were finally adopted. On the other hand, Napoleon opposed the indictment jury (“grand jury” of common law countries), and preferred to assign this task to the criminal division of the Court of Appeals. Special courts were created to judge criminals who might intimidate the jury.

The Dukedom of Bronte (Italian: Ducato/Ducea di Bronte (“Duchy of Bronte”)) is a dukedom with the title Duke of Bronte (Italian: Duca di Bronte), referring to the town of Bronte in the province of Catania, Sicily. It was granted on 10 October 1799 at Palermo to the British Royal Navy officer Horatio Nelson by King Ferdinand III of Sicily, in gratitude for Nelson having saved the kingdom of Sicily from conquest by Revolutionary French forces under Napoleon. This was largely achieved by Nelson’s victory at the Battle of the Nile (1798), which extinguished French naval power in the Mediterranean, but also by his having evacuated the royal family from their palace in Naples to the safety of Palermo in Sicily. It carried the right to sit in parliament within the military branch. The dukedom does not descend according to fixed rules but is transferable by the holder to whomsoever he or she desires, strangers included. Accompanying it was a grant of a 15,000 hectare (58 sq. mi.) estate, centered on the ancient monastery of Maniace, five miles north of Bronte, which Nelson ordered to be restored and embellished as his residence – thenceforth called Castello di Maniace. He appointed as his resident administrator (or governor) Johann Andreas Graeffer (d. 1802), an English-trained German landscape gardener who had recently created the English Garden at the Royal Palace of Caserta in Naples. Nelson never set foot on his estate, as he was killed in action six years later at the Battle of Trafalgar.

1817–1818: (Joseph) Bryant Barrett (1773–1818), who “seemed to have been well-intentioned with many ideas and projects for the improvement of the Bronte estate”, but died suddenly after one year of service, succeeded briefly by his widow Martha. He was the second son of Bryant Barrett (1714–90), the son of a London wax chandler and a Roman Catholic, who became lacemaker and private financier to King George III and purchased Milton Manor near Abingdon in Berkshire, where he built a new house designed by Inigo Jones.

(Joseph) Bryant Barrett was a solicitor at Gray’s Inn, possibly in partnership with his younger brother James William Barrett (1776–1864), the first Roman Catholic to have been admitted a solicitor following the relaxation of the penal laws. On 18 September 1804 at the fashionable St George’s Church, Hanover Square in London, he married Martha Spence, a daughter of Thomas Richard Spence, by whom he had two daughters. Note: Bryant Barrett’s father had made a fortune out of candle making and was a financier to the British king and up and coming naval personages.