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