second treatise of government-第22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　English　monarchy　is　founded　in　the　　Norman　conquest；　and　that　our　princes　have　thereby　a　title　to　　absolute　dominion：　which　if　it　were　true；　（as　by　the　history　it　　appears　otherwise）　and　that　William　had　a　right　to　make　war　on　　this　island；　yet　his　dominion　by　conquest　could　reach　no　farther　　than　to　the　Saxons　and　Britons；　that　were　then　inhabitants　of　　this　country。　　The　Normans　that　came　with　him；　and　helped　to　　conquer；　and　all　descended　from　them；　are　freemen；　and　no　　subjects　by　conquest；　let　that　give　what　dominion　it　will。　　And　　if　1；　or　any　body　else；　shall　claim　freedom；　as　derived　from　　them；　it　will　be　very　hard　to　prove　the　contrary：　and　it　is　　plain；　the　law；　that　has　made　no　distinction　between　the　one　and　　the　other；　intends　not　there　should　be　any　difference　in　their　　freedom　or　privileges。　　　　　　Sec。　178。　　But　supposing；　which　seldom　happens；　that　the　　conquerors　and　conquered　never　incorporate　into　one　people；　under　　the　same　laws　and　freedom；　let　us　see　next　what　power　a　lawful　　conqueror　has　over　the　subdued：　and　that　I　say　is　purely　　despotical。　　He　has　an　absolute　power　over　the　lives　of　those　who　　by　an　unjust　war　have　forfeited　them；　but　not　over　the　lives　or　　fortunes　of　those　who　engaged　not　in　the　war；　nor　over　the　　possessions　even　of　those　who　were　actually　engaged　in　it。　　　　　　Sec。　179。　　Secondly；　I　say　then　the　conqueror　gets　no　power　　but　only　over　those　who　have　actually　assisted；　concurred；　or　　consented　to　that　unjust　force　that　is　used　against　him：　for　the　　people　having　given　to　their　governors　no　power　to　do　an　unjust　　thing；　such　as　is　to　make　an　unjust　war；　（for　they　never　had　such　　a　power　in　themselves）　they　ought　not　to　be　charged　as　guilty　of　　the　violence　and　unjustice　that　is　committed　in　an　unjust　war；　　any　farther　than　they　actually　abet　it；　no　more　than　they　are　to　　be　thought　guilty　of　any　violence　or　oppression　their　governors　

should　use　upon　the　people　themselves；　or　any　part　of　their　　fellow　subjects；　they　having　empowered　them　no　more　to　the　one　　than　to　the　other。　　Conquerors；　it　is　true；　seldom　trouble　　themselves　to　make　the　distinction；　but　they　willingly　permit　the　　confusion　of　war　to　sweep　all　together：　but　yet　this　alters　not　　the　right；　for　the　conquerors　power　over　the　lives　of　the　　conquered；　being　only　because　they　have　used　force　to　do；　or　　maintain　an　injustice；　he　can　have　that　power　only　over　those　who　　have　concurred　in　that　force；　all　the　rest　are　innocent；　and　he　　has　no　more　title　over　the　people　of　that　country；　who　have　done　　him　no　injury；　and　so　have　made　no　forfeiture　of　their　lives；　　than　he　has　over　any　other；　who；　without　any　injuries　or　　provocations；　have　lived　upon　fair　terms　with　him。　　　　　　Sec。　180。　　Thirdly；　The　power　a　conqueror　gets　over　those　he　　overcomes　in　a　just　war；　is　perfectly　despotical：　he　has　an　　absolute　power　over　the　lives　of　those；　who；　by　putting　　themselves　in　a　state　of　war；　have　forfeited　them；　but　he　has　not　　thereby　a　right　and　title　to　their　possessions。　　This　I　doubt　　not；　but　at　first　sight　will　seem　a　strange　doctrine；　it　being　so　　quite　contrary　to　the　practice　of　the　world；　there　being　nothing　　more　familiar　in　speaking　of　the　dominion　of　countries；　than　to　　say　such　an　one　conquered　it；　as　if　conquest；　without　any　more　　ado；　conveyed　a　right　of　possession。　　But　when　we　consider；　that　　the　practice　of　the　strong　and　powerful；　how　universal　soever　it　　may　be；　is　seldom　the　rule　of　right；　however　it　be　one　part　of　　the　subjection　of　the　conquered；　not　to　argue　against　the　　conditions　cut　out　to　them　by　the　conquering　sword。　　　　　　Sec。　181。　　Though　in　all　war　there　be　usually　a　complication　　of　force　and　damage；　and　the　aggressor　seldom　fails　to　harm　the　　estate；　when　he　uses　force　against　the　persons　of　those　he　makes　　war　upon；　yet　it　is　the　use　of　force　only　that　puts　a　man　into　　the　state　of　war：　for　whether　by　force　he　begins　the　injury；　or　　else　having　quietly；　and　by　fraud；　done　the　injury；　he　refuses　to　　make　reparation；　and　by　force　maintains　it；　（which　is　the　same　　thing；　as　at　first　to　have　done　it　by　force）　it　is　the　unjust　use　　of　force　that　makes　the　war：　for　he　that　breaks　open　my　house；　　and　violently　turns　me　out　of　doors；　or　having　peaceably　got　in；　　by　force　keeps　me　out；　does　in　effect　the　same　thing；　supposing　　we　are　in　such　a　state；　that　we　have　no　common　judge　on　earth；　　whom　I　may　appeal　to；　and　to　whom　we　are　both　obliged　to　submit：　　for　of　such　I　am　now　speaking。　　It　is　the　unjust　use　of　force　　then；　that　puts　a　man　into　the　state　of　war　with　another；　and　　thereby　he　that　is　guilty　of　it　makes　a　forfeiture　of　his　life：　　for　quitting　reason；　which　is　the　rule　given　between　man　and　man；　　and　using　force；　the　way　of　beasts；　he　becomes　liable　to　be　　destroyed　by　him　he　uses　force　against；　as　any　savage　ravenous　　beast；　that　is　dangerous　to　his　being。　　　　　　Sec。　182。　　But　because　the　miscarriages　of　the　father　are　no　　faults　of　the　children；　and　they　may　be　rational　and　peaceable；　　notwithstanding　the　brutishness　and　injustice　of　the　father；　the　　father；　by　his　miscarriages　and　violence；　can　forfeit　but　his　own　　life；　but　involves　not　his　children　in　his　guilt　or　destruction。　　　His　goods；　which　nature；　that　willeth　the　preservation　of　all　　mankind　as　much　as　is　possible；　hath　made　to　belong　to　the　　children　to　keep　them　from　perishing；　do　still　continue　to　belong　　to　his　children：　for　supposing　them　not　to　have　joined　in　the　　war；　either　thro'infancy；　absence；　or　choice；　they　have　done　　nothing　to　forfeit　them：　nor　has　the　conqueror　any　right　to　take　　them　away；　by　the　bare　title　of　having　subdued　him　that　by　force　　attempted　his　destruction；　though　perhaps　he　may　have　some　right　　to　them；　to　repair　the　damages　he　has　sustained　by　the　war；　and　　the　defence　of　his　own　right；　which　how　far　it　reaches　to　the　　possessions　of　the　conquered；　we　shall　see　by　and　by。　　So　that　he　　that　by　conquest　has　a　right　over　a　man's　person　to　destroy　him　　if　he　pleases；　has　not　thereby　a　right　over　his　estate　to　possess　　and　enjoy　it：　for　it　is　the　brutal　force　the　aggressor　has　used；　

that　gives　his　adversary　a　right　to　take　away　his　life；　and　　destroy　him　if　he　pleases；　as　a　noxious　creature；　but　it　is　　damage　sustained　that　alone　gives　him　title　to　another　man's　　goods：　for　though　I　may　kill　a　thief　that　sets　on　me　in　the　　highway；　yet　I　may　not　（which　seems　less）　take　away　his　money；　　and　let　him　go：　this　would　be　robbery　on　my　side。　　His　force；　and　　the　state　of　war　he　put　himself　in；　made　him　forfeit　his　life；　　but　gave　me　no　title　to　his　goods。　　The　right　then　of　conquest　　extends　only　to　the　lives　of　those　who　joined　in　the　war；　not　to　　their　estates；　but　only　in　order　to　make　reparation　for　the　　damages　received；　and　the　charges　of　the　war；　and　that　too　with　　reservation　of　the　right　of　the　innocent　wife　and　children。　　　　　　Sec。　183。　　Let　the　conqueror　have　as　much　justice　on　his　　side；　as　could　be　supposed；　he　has　no　right　to　seize　more　than　　the　vanquished　could　forfeit：　his　life　is　at　the　victor's　mercy；　　and　his　service　and　goods　he　may　appropriate；　to　make　himself　　reparation；　but　he　cannot　take　the　goods　of　his　wife　and　　children；　they　too　had　a　title　to　the　goods　he　enjoyed；　and　their　　shares　in　the　estate　he　possessed：　for　example；　I　in　the　state　of　　nature　（and　all　commonwealths　are　in　the　state　of　nature　one　with　　another）　have　injured　another　man；　and　refusing　to　give　　satisfaction；　it　comes　to　a　state　of　war；　wherein　my　defending　by　　force　what　I　had　gotten　unjustly；　makes　me　the　aggressor。　　I　am　　conquered：　my　life；　it　is　true；　as　forfeit；　is　at　mercy；　but　not　　my　wife's　and　children's。　　They　made　not　the　war；　nor　assisted　in　　it。　　I　could　not　forfeit　their　lives；　they　were　not　mine　to　　forfeit。　　My　wife　had　a　share　in　my　estate；　that　neither　could　I　　forfeit。　　And　my　children　also；　being　born　of　me；　had　a　right　to　　be　maintained　out　of　my　labour　or　substance。　　Here　then　is　the　　case：　the　conqueror　has　a　title　to　reparation　for　damages　　received；　and　the　children　have　a　title　to　their　father's　estate　　for　their　subsistence：　for　as　to　the　wife's　share；　whether　her　　own　labour；　or　compact；　gave　her　a　title　to　it；　it　is　plain；　her　　husband　could　not　forfeit　what　was　her's。　　What　must　be　done　in　　the　case？　　I　answer；　the　fundamental　law　of　nature　being；　that　　all；　as　much　as　may　be；　should　be　preserved；　it　follows；　that　if　　there　be　not　enough　fully　to　satisfy　both；　viz；　for　the　　conqueror's　losses；　and　children's　maintenance；　he　that　hath；　and　　to　spare；　must　remit　something　of　his　full　satisfaction；　and　give　　way　to　the　pressing　and　preferable　title　of　those　who　are　in　　danger　to　perish　without　it。　　　　　　Sec。　184。　　But　supposing　the　charge　and　damages　of　the　war　　are　to　be　made　up　to　the　conqueror；　to　the　utmost　farthing；　and　　that　the　children　of　the　vanquished；　spoiled　of　all　their　　father's　goods；　are　to　be　left　to　starve　and　perish；　yet　the　　satisfying　of　what　shall；　on　this　score；　be　due　to　the　conqueror；　　will　scarce　give　him　a　title　to　any　country　he　shall　conquer：　for　　the　damages　of　war　can　scarce　amount　to　the　value　of　any　　considerable　tract　of　land；　in　any　part　of　the　world；　where　all　　the　land　is　possessed；　and　none　lies　waste。　　And　if　I　have　not　　taken　away　the　conqueror's　land；　which；　being　vanquished；　it　is　　impossible　I　should；　scarce　any　other　spoil　I　have　done　him　can　　amount　to　the　value　of　mine；　supposing　it　equally　cultivated；　and　　of　an　extent　any　way　coming　near　what　I　had　overrun　of　his。　　The　　destruction　of　a　year's　product　or　two　（for　it　seldom　reaches　　four　or　five）　is　the　utmost　spoil　that　usually　can　be　done：　for　　as　to　money；　and　such　riches　and　treasure　taken　away；　these　are　　none　of　nature's　goods；　they　have　but　a　fantastical　imaginary　　value：　nature　has　put　no　such　upon　them：　they　are　of　no　more　　account　by　her　standard；　than　the　wampompeke　of　the　Americans　to　　an　European　prince；　or　the　silver　money　of　Europe　would　have　been　　formerly　to　an　American。　　And　five　years　product　is　not　worth　the　　perpetual　inheritance　of　land；　where　all　is　possessed；　and　none　　remains　waste；　to　be　taken　up　by　him　that　is　disseized：　which　　will　be　easily　granted；　if　one　do　but　take　away　the　imaginary　　value　of　money；　the　disproportion　being　more　than　between　five　

and　five　hundred；　though；　at　the　same　time；　half　a　year's　product　　is　more　worth　than　the　inheritance；　where　there　being　more　land　　than　the　inhabitants　possess　and　make　use　of；　any　one　has　liberty　　to　make　use　of　the　waste：　but　there　conquerors　take　little　care　　to　possess　themselves　of　the　lands　of　the　vanquished；　No　damage　　therefore；　that　men　in　the　state　of　nature　（as　all　princes　and　　governments　are　in　reference　to　one　another）　suffer　from　one　　another；　can　give　a　conqueror　power　to　dispossess　the　posterity　　of　the　vanquished；　and　turn　them　out　of　that　inheritance；　which　　ought　to　be　the　possession　of　them　and　their　descendants　to　all　　generations。　　The　conqueror　indeed　will　be　apt　to　think　himself　　master：　and　it　is　the　very　condition　of　the　subdued　not　to　be　　able　to　dispute　their　right。　　But　if　that　be　all；　it　gives　no　　other　title　than　what　bare　force　gives　to　the　stronger　over　the　　weaker：　and；　by　this　reason；　he　that　is　strongest　will　have　a　　right　to　whatever　he　pleases　to　seize　on。　　　　　　Sec。　185。　　Over　those　then　that　j