the spirit of laws-第39部分

快捷操作: 按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页 按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页 按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部! 如果本书没有阅读完，想下次继续接着阅读，可使用上方 "收藏到我的浏览器" 功能 和 "加入书签" 功能！

sted　with　I　know　not　what　right　to　kill：　thence　they　have　drawn　consequences　as　terrible　as　the　very　principle；　and　established　maxims　which　the　conquerors　themselves；　when　possessed　of　the　least　grain　of　sense；　never　presumed　to　follow。　It　is　a　plain　case　that　when　the　conquest　is　completed；　the　conqueror　has　no　longer　a　right　to　kill；　because　he　has　no　longer　the　plea　of　natural　defence　and　self…preservation。

What　has　led　them　into　this　mistake　is；　that　they　imagined　a　conqueror　had　a　right　to　destroy　the　state；　whence　they　inferred　that　he　had　a　right　to　destroy　the　men　that　compose　it：　a　wrong　consequence　from　a　false　principle。　For　from　the　destruction　of　the　state　it　does　not　at　all　follow　that　the　people　who　compose　it　ought　to　be　also　destroyed。　The　state　is　the　association　of　men；　and　not　the　men　themselves；　the　citizen　may　perish；　and　the　man　remain。

From　the　right　of　killing　in　the　case　of　conquest；　politicians　have　drawn　that　of　reducing　to　slavery　　a　consequence　as　ill…grounded　as　the　principle。

There　is　no　such　thing　as　a　right　of　reducing　people　to　slavery；　save　when　it　becomes　necessary　for　the　preservation　of　the　conquest。　Preservation；　and　not　servitude；　is　the　end　of　conquest；　though　servitude　may　happen　sometimes　to　be　a　necessary　means　of　preservation。

Even　in　that　case　it　is　contrary　to　the　nature　of　things　that　the　slavery　should　be　perpetual。　The　people　enslaved　ought　to　be　rendered　capable　of　becoming　subjects。　Slavery　in　conquests　is　an　accidental　thing。　When　after　the　expiration　of　a　certain　space　of　time　all　the　parts　of　the　conquering　state　are　connected　with　the　conquered　nation；　by　custom；　marriages；　laws；　associations；　and　by　a　certain　conformity　of　disposition；　there　ought　to　be　an　end　of　the　slavery。　For　the　rights　of　the　conqueror　are　founded　entirely　on　the　opposition　between　the　two　nations　in　those　very　articles；　whence　prejudices　arise；　and　the　want　of　mutual　confidence。

A　conqueror；　therefore；　who　reduces　the　conquered　people　to　slavery；　ought　always　to　reserve　to　himself　the　means　（for　means　there　are　without　number）　of　restoring　them　to　their　liberty。

These　are　far　from　being　vague　and　uncertain　notions。　Thus　our　ancestors　acted；　those　ancestors　who　conquered　the　Roman　empire。　The　laws　they　made　in　the　heat　and　transport　of　passion　and　in　the　insolence　of　victory　were　gradually　softened；　those　laws　were　at　first　severe；　but　were　afterwards　rendered　impartial。　The　Burgundians；　Goths；　and　Lombards　would　have　the　Romans　continue　a　conquered　people；　but　the　laws　of　Euric；　Gundebald；　and　Rotharis　made　the　Romans　and　barbarians　fellow…citizens。＇1＇

Charlemagne；　to　tame　the　Saxons；　deprived　them　of　their　liberty　and　property。　Louis　the　Debonnaire　made　them　a　free　people；＇2＇　and　this　was　one　of　the　most　prudent　regulations　during　his　whole　reign。　Time　and　servitude　had　softened　their　manners；　and　they　ever　after　adhered　to　him　with　the　greatest　fidelity。

4。　Some　Advantages　of　a　conquered　People。　Instead　of　inferring　such　destructive　consequences　from　the　right　of　conquest；　much　better　would　it　have　been　for　politicians　to　mention　the　advantages　which　this　very　right　may　sometimes　give　to　a　conquered　people　　advantages　which　would　be　more　sensibly　and　more　universally　experienced　were　our　law　of　nations　exactly　followed；　and　established　in　every　part　of　the　globe。

Conquered　countries　are；　generally　speaking；　degenerated　from　their　original　institution。　Corruption　has　crept　in；　the　execution　of　the　laws　has　been　neglected；　and　the　government　has　grown　oppressive。　Who　can　question　but　such　a　state　would　be　a　gainer；　and　derive　some　advantages　from　the　very　conquest　itself；　if　it　did　not　prove　destructive？　When　a　government　has　arrived　at　that　degree　of　corruption　as　to　be　incapable　of　reforming　itself；　it　would　not　lose　much　by　being　newly　moulded。　A　conqueror　who　enters　triumphant　into　a　country　where　the　moneyed　men　have；　by　a　variety　of　artifices；　insensibly　arrived　at　innumerable　ways　of　encroaching　on　the　public；　where　the　miserable　people；　who　see　abuses　grown　into　laws；　are　ready　to　sink　under　the　weight　of　impression；　yet　think　they　have　no　right　to　apply　for　redress　　a　conqueror；　I　say；　may　make　a　total　change；　and　then　the　tyranny　of　those　wretches　will　be　the　first　thing　exposed　to　his　resentment。

We　have　beheld；　for　instance；　countries　oppressed　by　the　farmers　of　the　revenues；　and　eased　afterwards　by　the　conqueror；　who　had　neither　the　engagements　nor　wants　of　the　legitimate　prince。　Even　the　abuses　have　been　often　redressed　without　any　interposition　of　the　conqueror。

Sometimes　the　frugality　of　a　conquering　nation　has　enabled　them　to　allow　the　conquered　those　necessaries　of　which　they　had　been　deprived　under　a　lawful　prince。

A　conquest　may　destroy　pernicious　prejudices；　and　lay；　if　I　may　presume　to　use　the　expression；　the　nation　under　a　better　genius。

What　good　might　not　the　Spaniards　have　done　to　the　Mexicans？　They　had　a　mild　religion　to　impart　to　them；　but　they　filled　their　heads　with　a　frantic　superstition。　They　might　have　set　slaves　at　liberty；　they　made　freemen　slaves。　They　might　have　undeceived　them　with　regard　to　the　abuse　of　human　sacrifices；　instead　of　that　they　destroyed　them。　Never　should　I　have　finished；　were　I　to　recount　all　the　good　they　might　have　done；　and　all　the　mischief　they　committed。

It　is　a　conqueror's　business　to　repair　a　part　of　the　mischief　he　has　occasioned。　The　right；　therefore；　of　conquest　I　define　thus：　a　necessary；　lawful；　but　unhappy　power；　which　leaves　the　conqueror　under　a　heavy　obligation　of　repairing　the　injuries　done　to　humanity。

5。　Gelon；　King　of　Syracuse。　The　noblest　treaty　of　peace　ever　mentioned　in　history　is；　in　my　opinion；　that　which　Gelon　made　with　the　Carthaginians。　He　insisted　upon　their　abolishing　the　custom　of　sacrificing　their　children。＇3＇　Glorious　indeed！　After　having　defeated　three　hundred　thousand　Carthaginians；　he　required　a　condition　that　was　advantageous　only　to　themselves；　or　rather　he　stipulated　in　favour　of　human　nature。

The　Bactrians　exposed　their　aged　fathers　to　be　devoured　by　large　mastiffs　　a　custom　suppressed　by　Alexander；　whereby　he　obtained　a　signal　triumph　over　superstition。

6。　Of　Conquest　made　by　a　Republic。　It　is　contrary　to　the　nature　of　things　that　in　a　confederate　government　one　state　should　make　any　conquest　over　another；　as　in　our　days　we　have　seen　in　Switzerland。＇4＇　In　mixed　confederate　republics；　where　the　association　is　between　petty　republics　and　monarchies；　of　a　small　extent；　this　is　not　so　absurd。

Contrary　is　it　also　to　the　nature　of　things　that　a　democratic　republic　should　conquer　towns　which　cannot　enter　into　the　sphere　of　its　democracy。　It　is　necessary　that　the　conquered　people　should　be　capable　of　enjoying　the　privileges　of　sovereignty；　as　was　settled　in　the　very　beginning　among　the　Romans。　The　conquest　ought　to　be　limited　to　the　number　of　citizens　fixed　for　the　democracy。

If　a　democratic　republic　subdues　a　nation　in　order　to　govern　them　as　subjects；　it　exposes　its　own　liberty；　because　it　entrusts　too　great　a　power　to　those　who　are　appointed　to　the　command　of　the　conquered　provinces。

How　dangerous　would　have　been　the　situation　of　the　republic　of　Carthage　had　Hannibal　made　himself　master　of　Rome？　What　would　he　not　have　done　in　his　own　country；　had　he　been　victorious；　he　who　caused　so　many　revolutions　in　it　after　his　defeat？＇5＇

Hanno　could　never　have　dissuaded　the　senate　from　sending　succour　to　Hannibal；　had　he　used　no　other　argument　than　his　own　jealousy。　The　Carthaginian　senate；　whose　wisdom　is　so　highly　extolled　by　Aristotle　（and　which　has　been　evidently　proved　by　the　prosperity　of　that　republic）；　could　never　have　been　determined　by　other　than　solid　reasons。　They　must　have　been　stupid　not　to　see　that　an　army　at　the　distance　of　three　hundred　leagues　would　necessarily　be　exposed　to　losses　which　required　reparation。　

Hanno's　party　insisted　that　Hannibal　should　be　delivered　up　to　the　Romans。＇6＇　They　could　not　at　that　time　be　afraid　of　the　Romans；　they　were　therefore　apprehensive　of　Hannibal。

It　was　impossible；　some　will　say；　for　them　to　imagine　that　Hannibal　had　been　so　successful。　But　how　was　it　possible　for　them　to　doubt　it？　Could　the　Carthaginians；　a　people　spread　over　all　the　earth；　be　ignorant　of　what　was　transacting　in　Italy？　No：　they　were　sufficiently　acquainted　with　it；　and　for　that　reason　they　did　not　care　to　send　supplies　to　Hannibal。

Hanno　became　more　resolute　after　the　battle　of　Trebia；　after　the　battle　of　Thrasimenus；　after　that　of　Cann？；　it　was　not　his　incredulity　that　increased；　but　his　fear。

7。　The　same　Subject　continued。　There　is　still　another　inconvenience　in　conquests　made　by　democracies：　their　government　is　ever　odious　to　the　conquered　states。　It　is　apparently　monarchical：　but　in　reality　it　is　much　more　oppressive　than　monarchy；　as　the　experience　of　all　ages　and　countries　evinces。

The　conquered　people　are　in　a　melancholy　situation；　they　neither　enjoy　the　advantages　of　a　republic；　nor　those　of　a　monarchy。

What　has　been　here　said　of　a　popular　state　is　applicable　to　aristocracy。

8。　The　same　Subject　continued。　When　a　republic；　therefore；　keeps　another　nation　in　subjection；　it　should　endeavour　to　repair　the　inconveniences　ar