second treatise of government-第9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！
iscretion to treat him still as a boy？ Sec。 69。 The first part then of paternal power； or rather duty； which is education； belongs so to the father； that it terminates at a certain season； when the business of education is over； it ceases of itself； and is also alienable before： for a man may put the tuition of his son in other hands； and he that has made his son an apprentice to another； has discharged him； during that time； of a great part of his obedience both to himself and to his mother。 But all the duty of honour； the other part； remains never the less entire to them； nothing can cancel that： it is so inseparable from them both； that the father's authority cannot dispossess the mother of this right； nor can any man discharge his son from honouring her that bore him。 But both these are very far from a power to make laws； and enforcing them with penalties； that may reach estate； liberty； limbs and life。 The power of commanding ends with nonage； and though； after that； honour and respect； support and defence； and whatsoever gratitude can oblige a man to； for the highest benefits he is naturally capable of； be always due from a son to his parents； yet all this puts no scepter into the father's hand； no sovereign power of commanding。 He has no dominion over his son's property； or actions； nor any right； that his will should prescribe to his son's in all things； however it may become his son in many things； not very inconvenient to him and his family； to pay a deference to it。 Sec。 70。 A man may owe honour and respect to an ancient； or wise man； defence to his child or friend； relief and support to the distressed； and gratitude to a benefactor； to such a degree； that all he has； all he can do； cannot sufficiently pay it： but all these give no authority； no right to any one； of making laws over him from whom they are owing。 And it is plain； all this is due not only to the bare title of father； not only because； as has been said； it is owing to the mother too； but because these obligations to parents； and the degrees of what is required of children； may be varied by the different care and kindness； trouble and expence； which is often employed upon one child more than another。 Sec。 71。 This shews the reason how it comes to pass； that parents in societies； where they themselves are subjects； retain a power over their children； and have as much right to their subjection； as those who are in the state of nature。 Which could not possibly be； if all political power were only paternal； and that in truth they were one and the same thing： for then； all paternal power being in the prince； the subject could naturally have none of it。 But these two powers； political and paternal； are so perfectly distinct and separate； are built upon so different foundations； and given to so different ends； that every subject that is a father； has as much a paternal power over his children； as the prince has over his： and every prince； that has parents； owes them as much filial duty and obedience； as the meanest of his subjects do to their's； and can therefore contain not any part or degree of that kind of dominion； which a prince or magistrate has over his subject。 Sec。 72。 Though the obligation on the parents to bring up their children； and the obligation on children to honour their parents； contain all the power on the one hand； and submission on the other； which are proper to this relation； yet there is
another power ordinarily in the father； whereby he has a tie on the obedience of his children； which tho' it be common to him with other men； yet the occasions of shewing it； almost consich tho' it be common to him with other men； yet the occasions of shewing it； almost constantly happening to fathers in their private families； and the instances of it elsewhere being rare； and less taken notice of； it passes in the world for a part of paternal jurisdiction。 And this is the power men generally have to bestow their estates on those who please them best； the possession of the father being the expectation and inheritance of the children； ordinarily in certain proportions； according to the law and custom of each country； yet it is commonly in the father's power to bestow it with a more sparing or liberal hand； according as the behaviour of this or that child hath comported with his will and humour。 Sec。 73。 This is no small tie on the obedience of children： and there being always annexed to the enjoyment of land； a submission to the government of the country； of which that land is a part； it has been commonly supposed； that a father could oblige his posterity to that government； of which he himself was a subject； and that his compact held them； whereas； it being only a necessary condition annexed to the land； and the inheritance of an estate which is under that government； reaches only those who will take it on that condition； and so is no natural tie or engagement； but a voluntary submission： for every man's children being by nature as free as himself； or any of his ancestors ever were； may； whilst they are in that freedom； choose what society they will join themselves to； what common…wealth they will put themselves under。 But if they will enjoy the inheritance of their ancestors； they must take it on the same terms their ancestors had it； and submit to all the conditions annexed to such a possession。 By this power indeed fathers oblige their children to obedience to themselves； even when they are past minority； and most commonly too subject them to this or that political power： but neither of these by any peculiar right of fatherhood； but by the reward they have in their hands to inforce and recompence such a compliance； and is no more power than what a French man has over an English man； who by the hopes of an estate he will leave him； will certainly have a strong tie on his obedience： and if； when it is left him； he will enjoy it； he must certainly take it upon the conditions annexed to the possession of land in that country where it lies； whether it be France or England。 Sec。 74。 To conclude then； tho' the father's power of commanding extends no farther than the minority of his children； and to a degree only fit for the discipline and government of that age； and tho' that honour and respect； and all that which the Latins called piety； which they indispensably owe to their parents all their life…time； and in all estates； with all that support and defence is due to them； gives the father no power of governing； i。e。 making laws and enacting penalties on his children； though by all this he has no dominion over the property or actions of his son： yet it is obvious to conceive how easy it was； in the first ages of the world； and in places still； where the thinness of people gives families leave to separate into unpossessed quarters； and they have room to remove or plant themselves in yet vacant habitations； for the father of the family to become the prince of* it； he had been a ruler from the beginning of the infancy of his children： and since without some government it would be hard for them to live together； it was likeliest it should； by the express or tacit consent of the children when they were grown up； be in the father； where it seemed without any change barely to continue； when indeed nothing more was required to it； than the permitting the father to exercise alone； in his family； that executive power of the law of nature； which every free man naturally hath； and by that
permission resigning up to him a monarchical power； whilst they remained in it。 But that this was not by any paternal right； but only by the consent of his children； is evident from hence； that no body doubts； but if a stranger； whom chance or business had brought to his family； had there killed any of his children； or committed any other fact； he might condemn and put him to death； or other…wise have punished him； as well as any of his children； which it was impossible he should do by virtue of any paternal authority over one who was not his child； but by virtue of that executive power of the law of nature； which； as a man； he had a right to： and he alone could punish him in his family； where the respect of his children had laid by the exercise of such a power； to give way to the dignity and authority they were willing should remain in him； above the rest of his family。 （*It is no improbable opinion therefore； which the archphilosopher was of； that the chief person in every houshold was always； as it were； a king： so when numbers of housholds joined themselves in civil societies together； kings were the first kind of governors amongst them； which is also； as it seemeth； the reason why the name of fathers continued still in them； who； of fathers； were made rulers； as also the ancient custom of governors to do as Melchizedec； and being kings； to exercise the office of priests； which fathers did at the first； grew perhaps by the same occasion。 Howbeit； this is not the only kind of regiment that has been received in the world。 The inconveniences of one kind have caused sundry others to be devised； so that in a word； all public regiment； of what kind soever； seemeth evidently to have risen from the deliberate advice； consultation and composition between men； judging it convenient and behoveful； there being no impossibility in nature considered by itself； but that man might have lived without any public regiment； Hooker's Eccl。 Pol。 lib。 i。 sect。 10。） Sec。 75。 Thus it was easy； and almost natural for children； by a tacit； and scarce avoidable consent； to make way for the father's authority and government。 They had been accustomed in their childhood to follow his direction； and to refer their little differences to him； and when they were men； who fitter to rule them？ Their little properties； and less covetousness； seldom afforded greater controversies； and when any should arise； where could they have a fitter umpire than he； by whose care they had every one been sustained and brought up； and who had a tenderness for them aII？ It is no wonder that they made no distinction betwixt minority and full age； nor looked after one and twenty； or any other age that might make them the free disposers of themselves and fortunes； when they could have no desire to be out of their pupilage： the government they had been under； during it； continued still to be more their protection than restraint； and they could no where find a greater security to their peace； liberties； and fortunes； than in the rule of a father。 Sec。 76。 Thus the natural fathers of families； by an insensible change； became the politic monarchs of them too： and as they chanced to live long； and leave able and worthy heirs； for several successions； or otherwise； so they laid the foundations of hereditary； or elective kingdoms； under several constitutions and mannors； according as chance； contrivance； or occasions happened to mould them。 But if princes have their titles in their fathers right； and it be a sufficient proof of the natural right of fathers to political authority； because they commonly were th
