the spirit of laws-第43章

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！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


kind；　which　if　defeated　in　one　country　would　be　unsuccessful　everywhere　else；　and　if　once　unsuccessful；　would　be　so　for　ever。

8。　A　particular　Case　in　which　the　defensive　Force　of　a　State　is　inferior　to　the　offensive。　It　was　a　saying　of　the　Lord　of　Coucy　to　King　Charles　V　that　the　English　are　never　weaker；　nor　more　easily　overcome；　than　in　their　own　country。　The　same　was　observed　of　the　Romans；　the　same　of　the　Carthaginians；　and　the　same　will　happen　to　every　power　that　sends　armies　to　distant　countries；　in　order　to　reunite　by　discipline　and　military　force　those　who　are　divided　among　themselves　by　political　or　civil　interests。　The　state　finds　itself　weakened　by　the　disorder　that　still　continues；　and　more　so　by　the　remedy。

The　Lord　of　Coucy's　maxim　is　an　exception　to　the　general　rule；　which　disapproves　of　wars　against　distant　countries。　And　this　exception　confirms　likewise　the　rule　because　it　takes　place　only　with　regard　to　those　by　whom　such　wars　are　undertaken。

9。　Of　the　relative　Force　of　States。　All　grandeur；　force；　and　power　are　relative。　Care　therefore　must　be　taken　that　in　endeavouring　to　increase　the　real　grandeur；　the　relative　be　not　diminished。

During　the　reign　of　Louis　XIV　France　was　at　its　highest　pitch　of　relative　grandeur。　Germany　had　not　yet　produced　such　powerful　princes　as　have　since　appeared　in　that　country。　Italy　was　in　the　same　case。　England　and　Scotland　were　not　yet　formed　into　one　united　kingdom。　Aragon　was　not　joined　to　Castile：　the　distant　branches　of　the　Spanish　monarchy　were　weakened　by　it；　and　weakened　it　in　their　turn；　and　Muscovy　was　as　little　known　in　Europe　as　Crim　Tartary。

10。　Of　the　Weakness　of　neighbouring　States。　Whensoever　a　state　lies　contiguous　to　another　that　happens　to　be　in　its　decline；　the　former　ought　to　take　particular　care　not　to　precipitate　the　ruin　of　the　latter；　because　this　is　the　happiest　situation　imaginable；　nothing　being　so　convenient　as　for　one　prince　to　be　near　another；　who　receives　for　him　all　the　rebuffs　and　insults　of　fortune。　And　it　seldom　happens　that　by　subduing　such　a　state　the　real　power　of　the　conqueror　is　as　much　increased　as　the　relative　is　diminished。

______

1。　It　is　composed　of　about　fifty　different　republics；　all　different　from　one　another。　　M。　Janisson；　State　of　the　United　Provinces。

2。　Civil　liberty；　goods；　wives；　children；　temples；　and　even　burying…places。

3。　Strabo；　xiv。

4。　Ibid。

5。　Ibid。




Book　X。　Of　Laws　in　the　Relation　They　Bear　to　Offensive　Force

1。　Of　offensive　Force。　Offensive　force　is　regulated　by　the　law　of　nations；　which　is　the　political　law　of　each　country　considered　in　its　relation　to　every　other。

2。　Of　War。　The　life　of　governments　is　like　that　of　man。　The　latter　has　a　right　to　kill　in　case　of　natural　defence：　the　former　have　a　right　to　wage　war　for　their　own　preservation。

In　the　case　of　natural　defence　I　have　a　right　to　kill；　because　my　life　is　in　respect　to　me　what　the　life　of　my　antagonist　is　to　him：　in　the　same　manner　a　state　wages　war　because　its　preservation　is　like　that　of　any　other　being。

With　individuals　the　right　of　natural　defence　does　not　imply　a　necessity　of　attacking。　Instead　of　attacking　they　need　only　have　recourse　to　proper　tribunals。　They　cannot　therefore　exercise　this　right　of　defence　but　in　sudden　cases；　when　immediate　death　would　be　the　consequence　of　waiting　for　the　assistance　of　the　law。　But　with　states　the　right　of　natural　defence　carries　along　with　it　sometimes　the　necessity　of　attacking；　as　for　instance；　when　one　nation　sees　that　a　continuance　of　peace　will　enable　another　to　destroy　her；　and　that　to　attack　that　nation　instantly　is　the　only　way　to　prevent　her　own　destruction。

Thence　it　follows　that　petty　states　have　oftener　a　right　to　declare　war　than　great　ones；　because　they　are　oftener　in　the　case　of　being　afraid　of　destruction。

The　right　of　war；　therefore；　is　derived　from　necessity　and　strict　justice。　If　those　who　direct　the　conscience　or　councils　of　princes　do　not　abide　by　this　maxim；　the　consequence　is　dreadful：　when　they　proceed　on　arbitrary　principles　of　glory；　convenience；　and　utility；　torrents　of　blood　must　overspread　the　earth。

But；　above　all；　let　them　not　plead　such　an　idle　pretext　as　the　glory　of　the　prince：　his　glory　is　nothing　but　pride；　it　is　a　passion；　and　not　a　legitimate　right。

It　is　true　the　fame　of　his　power　might　increase　the　strength　of　his　government；　but　it　might　be　equally　increased　by　the　reputation　of　his　justice。

3。　Of　the　Right　of　Conquest。　From　the　right　of　war　comes　that　of　conquest；　which　is　the　consequence　of　that　right；　and　ought　therefore　to　follow　its　spirit。

The　right　the　conqueror　has　over　a　conquered　people　is　directed　by　four　sorts　of　laws：　the　law　of　nature；　which　makes　everything　tend　to　the　preservation　of　the　species；　the　law　of　natural　reason；　which　teaches　us　to　do　to　others　what　we　would　have　done　to　ourselves；　the　law　that　forms　political　societies；　whose　duration　nature　has　not　limited；　and；　in　fine；　the　law　derived　from　the　nature　of　the　thing　itself。　Conquest　is　an　acquisition；　and　carries　with　it　the　spirit　of　preservation　and　use；　not　of　destruction。

The　inhabitants　of　a　conquered　country　are　treated　by　the　conqueror　in　one　of　the　four　following　ways：　Either　he　continues　to　rule　them　according　to　their　own　laws；　and　assumes　to　himself　only　the　exercise　of　the　political　and　civil　government；　or　he　gives　them　new　political　and　civil　government；　or　he　destroys　and　disperses　the　society；　or；　in　fine；　he　exterminates　the　people。

The　first　way　is　conformable　to　the　law　of　nations　now　followed；　the　fourth　is　more　agreeable　to　the　law　of　nations　followed　by　the　Romans：　in　respect　to　which　I　leave　the　reader　to　judge　how　far　we　have　improved　upon　the　ancients。　We　must　give　due　commendations　to　our　modern　refinements　in　reason；　religion；　philosophy；　and　manners。

The　authors　of　our　public　law；　guided　by　ancient　histories；　without　confining　themselves　to　cases　of　strict　necessity；　have　fallen　into　very　great　errors。　They　have　adopted　tyrannical　and　arbitrary　principles；　by　supposing　the　conquerors　to　be　invested　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。