the spirit of laws-第45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！


It　is　natural　for　mankind　to　set　a　higher　value　upon　courage　than　timidity；　on　activity　than　prudence；　on　strength　than　counsel。　Hence　the　army　will　ever　despise　a　senate；　and　respect　their　own　officers。　They　will　naturally　slight　the　orders　sent　them　by　a　body　of　men　whom　they　look　upon　as　cowards；　and　therefore　unworthy　to　command　them。　So　that　as　soon　as　the　troops　depend　entirely　on　the　legislative　body；　it　becomes　a　military　government；　and　if　the　contrary　has　ever　happened；　it　has　been　owing　to　some　extraordinary　circumstances。　It　is　because　the　army　was　always　kept　divided；　it　is　because　it　was　composed　of　several　bodies　that　depended　each　on　a　particular　province；　it　is　because　the　capital　towns　were　strong　places；　defended　by　their　natural　situation；　and　not　garrisoned　with　regular　troops。　Holland；　for　instance；　is　still　safer　than　Venice；　she　might　drown　or　starve　the　revolted　troops；　for　as　they　are　not　quartered　in　towns　capable　of　furnishing　them　with　necessary　subsistence；　this　subsistence　is　of　course　precarious。

In　perusing　the　admirable　treatise　of　Tacitus　On　the　Manners　of　the　Germans；＇13＇　we　find　it　is　from　that　nation　the　English　have　borrowed　the　idea　of　their　political　government。　This　beautiful　system　was　invented　first　in　the　woods。

As　all　human　things　have　an　end；　the　state　we　are　speaking　of　will　lose　its　liberty；　will　perish。　Have　not　Rome；　Sparta；　and　Carthage　perished？　It　will　perish　when　the　legislative　power　shall　be　more　corrupt　than　the　executive。

It　is　not　my　business　to　examine　whether　the　English　actually　enjoy　this　liberty　or　not。　Sufficient　it　is　for　my　purpose　to　observe　that　it　is　established　by　their　laws；　and　I　inquire　no　further。

Neither　do　I　pretend　by　this　to　undervalue　other　governments；　nor　to　say　that　this　extreme　political　liberty　ought　to　give　uneasiness　to　those　who　have　only　a　moderate　share　of　it。　How　should　I　have　any　such　design；　I　who　think　that　even　the　highest　refinement　of　reason　is　not　always　desirable；　and　that　mankind　generally　find　their　account　better　in　mediums　than　in　extremes？

Harrington；　in　his　Oceana；　has　also　inquired　into　the　utmost　degree　of　liberty　to　which　the　constitution　of　a　state　may　be　carried。　But　of　him　indeed　it　may　be　said　that　for　want　of　knowing　the　nature　of　real　liberty　he　busied　himself　in　pursuit　of　an　imaginary　one；　and　that　he　built　a　Chalcedon；　though　he　had　a　Byzantium　before　his　eyes。

7。　Of　the　Monarchies　we　are　acquainted　with。　The　monarchies　we　are　acquainted　with　have　not；　like　that　we　have　been　speaking　of；　liberty　for　their　direct　view：　the　only　aim　is　the　glory　of　the　subject；　of　the　state；　and　of　the　sovereign。　But　hence　there　results　a　spirit　of　liberty；　which　in　those　states　is　capable　of　achieving　as　great　things；　and　of　contributing　as　much　perhaps　to　happiness　as　liberty　itself。

Here　the　three　powers　are　not　distributed　and　founded　on　the　model　of　the　constitution　above…mentioned；　they　have　each　a　particular　distribution；　according　to　which　they　border　more　or　less　on　political　liberty；　and　if　they　did　not　border　upon　it；　monarchy　would　degenerate　into　despotic　government。

8。　Why　the　Ancients　had　not　a　clear　Idea　of　Monarchy。　The　ancients　had　no　notion　of　a　government　founded　on　a　body　of　nobles；　and　much　less　on　a　legislative　body　composed　of　the　representatives　of　the　people。　The　republics　of　Greece　and　Italy　were　cities　that　had　each　their　own　form　of　government；　and　convened　their　subjects　within　their　walls。　Before　Rome　had　swallowed　up　all　the　other　republics；　there　was　scarcely　anywhere　a　king　to　be　found；　no；　not　in　Italy；　Gaul；　Spain；　or　Germany；　they　were　all　petty　states　or　republics。　Even　Africa　itself　was　subject　to　a　great　commonwealth：　and　Asia　Minor　was　occupied　by　Greek　colonies。　There　was；　therefore；　no　instance　of　deputies　of　towns　or　assemblies　of　the　states；　one　must　have　gone　as　far　as　Persia　to　find　a　monarchy。

I　am　not　ignorant　that　there　were　confederate　republics；　in　which　several　towns　sent　deputies　to　an　assembly。　But　I　affirm　there　was　no　monarchy　on　that　model。

The　first　plan；　therefore；　of　the　monarchies　we　are　acquainted　with　was　thus　formed。　The　German　nations　that　conquered　the　Roman　empire　were　certainly　a　free　people。　Of　this　we　may　be　convinced　only　by　reading　Tacitus　On　the　Manners　of　the　Germans。　The　conquerors　spread　themselves　over　all　the　country；　living　mostly　in　the　fields；　and　very　little　in　towns。　When　they　were　in　Germany；　the　whole　nation　was　able　to　assemble。　This　they　could　no　longer　do　when　dispersed　through　the　conquered　provinces。　And　yet　as　it　was　necessary　that　the　nation　should　deliberate　on　public　affairs；　pursuant　to　their　usual　method　before　the　conquest；　they　had　recourse　to　representatives。　Such　is　the　origin　of　the　Gothic　government　amongst　us。　At　first　it　was　mixed　with　aristocracy　and　monarchy　　a　mixture　attended　with　this　inconvenience；　that　the　common　people　were　bondmen。　The　custom　afterwards　succeeded　of　granting　letters　of　enfranchisement；　and　was　soon　followed　by　so　perfect　a　harmony　between　the　civil　liberty　of　the　people；　the　privileges　of　the　nobility　and　clergy；　and　the　prince's　prerogative；　that　I　really　think　there　never　was　in　the　world　a　government　so　well　tempered　as　that　of　each　part　of　Europe；　so　long　as　it　lasted。　Surprising　that　the　corruption　of　the　government　of　a　conquering　nation　should　have　given　birth　to　the　best　species　of　constitution　that　could　possibly　be　imagined　by　man！

9。　Aristotle's　Manner　of　Thinking。　Aristotle　is　greatly　puzzled　in　treating　of　monarchy。＇14＇　He　makes　five　species；　and　he　does　not　distinguish　them　by　the　form　of　constitution；　but　by　things　merely　accidental；　as　the　virtues　and　vices　of　the　prince；　or　by　things　extrinsic；　such　as　tyranny　usurped　or　inherited。

Among　the　number　of　monarchies　he　ranks　the　Persian　empire　and　the　kingdom　of　Sparta。　But　is　it　not　evident　that　the　one　was　a　despotic　state　and　the　other　a　republic？

The　ancients；　who　were　strangers　to　the　distribution　of　the　three　powers　in　the　government　of　a　single　person；　could　never　form　a　just　idea　of　monarchy。

10。　What　other　Politicians　thought。　To　temper　monarchy；　Arybas；　king　of　Epirus；＇15＇　found　no　other　remedy　than　a　republic。　The　Molossi；　not　knowing　how　to　limit　the　same　power；　made　two　kings；＇16＇　by　which　means　the　state　was　weakened　more　than　the　prerogative；　they　wanted　rivals；　and　they　created　enemies。　

Two　kings　were　tolerable　nowhere　but　at　Sparta；　here　they　did　not　form；　but　were　only　a　part　of　the　constitution。

11。　Of　the　Kings　of　the　heroic　Times　of　Greece。　In　the　heroic　times　of　Greece；　a　kind　of　monarchy　arose　that　was　not　of　long　duration。＇17＇　Those　who　had　been　inventors　of　arts；　who　had　fought　in　their　country's　cause；　who　had　established　societies；　or　distributed　lands　among　the　people；　obtained　the　regal　power；　and　transmitted　it　to　their　children。　They　were　kings；　priests；　and　judges。　This　was　one　of　the　five　species　of　monarchy　mentioned　by　Aristotle；＇18＇　and　the　only　one　that　can　give　us　any　idea　of　the　monarchical　constitution。　But　the　plan　of　this　constitution　is　opposite　to　that　of　our　modern　monarchies。

The　three　powers　were　there　distributed　in　such　a　manner　that　the　people　were　the　legislature；＇19＇　and　the　king　had　the　executive　together　with　the　judiciary　power；　whereas　in　modern　monarchies　the　prince　is　invested　with　the　executive　and　legislative　powers；　or　at　least　with　part　of　the　legislative；　but　does　not　act　in　a　judiciary　capacity。

In　the　government　of　the　kings　of　the　heroic　times；　the　three　powers　were　ill…distributed。　Hence　those　monarchies　could　not　long　subsist。　For　as　soon　as　the　people　got　the　legislative　power　into　their　hands；　they　might；　as　they　everywhere　did；　upon　the　very　least　caprice；　subvert　the　regal　authority。

Among　a　free　people　possessed　of　the　legislative　power；　and　enclosed　within　walls；　where　everything　tending　towards　oppression　appears　still　more　odious；　it　is　the　masterpiece　of　legislation　to　know　where　to　place　properly　the　judiciary　power。　But　it　could　not　be　in　worse　hands　than　in　those　of　the　person　to　whom　the　executive　power　had　been　already　committed。　From　that　very　instant　the　monarch　became　terrible。　But　at　the　same　time　as　he　had　no　share　in　the　legislature；　he　could　make　no　defence　against　it；　thus　his　power　was　in　one　sense　too　great；　in　another　too　little。

They　had　not　as　yet　discovered　that　the　true　function　of　a　prince　was　to　appoint　judges；　and　not　to　sit　as　judge　himself。　The　opposite　policy　rendered　the　government　of　a　single　person　insupportable。　Hence　all　these　kings　were　banished。　The　Greeks　had　no　notion　of　the　proper　distribution　of　the　three　powers　in　the　government　of　one　person；　they　could　see　it　only　in　that　of　many；　and　this　kind　of　constitution　they　distinguished　by　the　name　of　Polity。＇20＇

12。　Of　the　Government　of　the　Kings　of　Rome；　and　in　what　Manner　the　three　Powers　were　there　distributed。　The　government　of　the　kings　of　Rome　had　some　relation　to　that　of　the　kings　of　the　heroic　times　of　Greece。　Its　subversion；　like　the　latter's；　was　owing　to　its　general　defect；　though　in　its　own　particular　nature　it　was　exceedingly　good。

In　order　to　give　an　adequate　idea　of　this　government；　I　shall　distinguish　that　of