the spirit of laws-第51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！



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　the　first　five　kings；　that　of　Servius　Tullius；　and　that　of　Tarquin。

The　crown　was　elective；　and　under　the　first　five　kings　the　senate　had　the　greatest　share　in　the　election。

Upon　the　king's　decease　the　senate　examined　whether　they　should　continue　the　established　form　of　government。　If　they　thought　proper　to　continue　it；　they　named　a　magistrate＇21＇　taken　from　their　own　body；　who　chose　a　king；　the　senate　were　to　approve　of　the　election；　the　people　to　confirm　it；　and　the　augurs　to　declare　the　approbation　of　the　gods。　If　any　of　these　three　conditions　was　wanting；　they　were　obliged　to　proceed　to　another　election。

The　constitution　was　a　mixture　of　monarchy；　aristocracy；　and　democracy；　and　such　was　the　harmony　of　power　that　there　was　no　instance　of　jealousy　or　dispute　in　the　first　reigns。　The　king　commanded　the　armies；　and　had　the　direction　of　the　sacrifices：　he　had　the　power　of　determining＇22＇　civil　and　criminal＇23＇　causes；　he　called　the　senate　together；　convened　the　people；　laid　some　affairs　before　the　latter；　and　regulated　the　rest　with　the　senate。＇24＇

The　authority　of　the　senate　was　very　great。　The　kings　oftentimes　pitched　upon　senators　with　whom　they　sat　in　judgment；　and　they　never　laid　any　affair　before　the　people　till　it　had　been　previously　debated＇25＇　in　that　august　assembly。

The　people　had　the　right　of　choosing＇26＇　magistrates；　of　consenting　to　the　new　laws；　and；　with　the　king's　permission；　of　making　war　and　peace；　but　they　had　not　the　judicial　power。　When　Tullius　Hostilius　referred　the　trial　of　Horatius　to　the　people；　he　had　his　particular　reasons；　which　may　be　seen　in　Dionysius　Halicarnassus。＇27＇

The　constitution　altered　under＇28＇　Servius　Tullius。　The　senate　had　no　share　in　his　election；　he　caused　himself　to　be　proclaimed　by　the　people；　he　resigned　the　power　of　hearing　civil　causes；＇29＇　reserving　none　to　himself　but　those　of　a　criminal　nature；　he　laid　all　affairs　directly　before　the　people；　eased　them　of　the　taxes；　and　imposed　the　whole　burden　on　the　patricians。　Hence　in　proportion　as　he　weakened　the　regal　together　with　the　senatorial　power；　he　augmented　that　of　the　plebeians。＇30＇

Tarquin　would　neither　be　chosen　by　the　senate　nor　by　the　people；　he　considered　Servius　Tullius　as　a　usurper；　and　seized　the　crown　as　his　hereditary　right。　He　destroyed　most　of　the　senators；　those　who　remained　he　never　consulted；　nor　did　he　even　so　much　as　summon　them　to　assist　at　his　decisions。＇31＇　Thus　his　power　increased：　but　the　odium　of　that　power　received　a　new　addition；　by　usurping　also　the　authority　of　the　people；　against　whose　consent　he　enacted　several　laws。　The　three　powers　were　by　these　means　re…united　in　his　person；　but　the　people　at　a　critical　minute　recollected　that　they　were　legislators；　and　there　was　an　end　of　Tarquin。

13。　General　Reflections　on　the　State　of　Rome　after　the　Expulsion　of　its　Kings。　It　is　impossible　to　be　tired　of　so　agreeable　a　subject　as　ancient　Rome：　thus　strangers　at　present　leave　the　modern　palaces　of　that　celebrated　capital　to　visit　the　ruins；　and　thus　the　eye；　after　recreating　it