图书在版编目（CIP）数据 常识 /（美）潘恩（Paine, T.）著；李芳华译. —北京 : 中国青年出版社，2013.9（塑造美国的88本书） ISBN 978-7-5153-1863-9 Ⅰ. ①常… Ⅱ. ①潘… ②李… Ⅲ. ①政治思想史－美国－近代 Ⅳ. ①D097.124 中国版本图书馆CIP数据核字（2013）第189683号 常识 作 者：［美］托马斯·潘恩 译 者：李芳华 策划编辑：陈 晨 李玲香 责任编辑：孙雪蕾 美术编辑：夏 蕊 出 版：中国青年出版社 发 行：北京中青文文化传媒有限公司 电 话：010-65516873/65518035 公司网址：www.cyb.com.cn 购书网址：zqwts.tmall.com www.diyijie.com 制 作：中青文制作中心 印 刷：北京盛源印刷有限公司 版 次：2013年9月第1版 印 次：2013年9月第1次印刷 开 本：787×1092 １/16 字 数：100千字 印 张：12.5 书 号：ISBN 978-7-5153-1863-9 定 价：28.00元 中青版图书，版权所有，盗版必究 编者的话 1910年，年仅19岁的胡适考取“庚子赔款”第二期官费生赴美留学，就读于康奈尔大学。偶遇美国小学新生开学，胡适难抑好奇跑去旁听，内心受到极大震动。美国启蒙第一课只有一个内容，便是令全体学生宣读誓词：“我保证善用我的思辨才能；我保证发展我独立的思想；我保证接受教育，从而使自己能够独立判断。”正是这段誓词，让胡适深刻体会到：美国之所以成为美国，全在于其“独立之精神，自由之思想”，而这一理念成了胡适先生一生坚守的信念。 美国，距其建国不过200余年，却已是世界强国。我们不禁要问：这个民族，究竟是如何在这么短的时间内做到经济上飞速发达，政治上游刃有余的？更为重要的是，它如何将这关系国本的“思想与精神”赋予它的民众，令他们秉持信仰，坚守信念？ 2012年5月，美国馆藏量最大、历史最悠久的国会图书馆遴选出88部对美国社会最具影响力的书籍，定名为“塑造美国的书”（Books That Shaped America）。《飘》、《麦田守望者》、《了不起的盖茨比》、《第22条军规》、《汤姆叔叔的小屋》等历久弥新、耳熟能详的经典名著均入选。这些书籍或曾在当时社会引发争议，或甫一亮相即引起极大轰动，或令人愤慨，或引人怒骂，或发人深思，但仍对美国乃至全世界读者了解美国社会发挥了重要作用。 为此，我们引进并翻译出版了这套“塑造美国的88本书”丛书。力争客观、原生态地呈现美国的人文社会、政治制度以及美国历史发展和民主进程，在一个个美国故事中，讲述真实的美国和美国人，宏观展示美国的诞生、成长和强大，美国人自我意识的觉醒和认同。它们包括：推动北美人民走上公开独立道路的战斗缴文《常识》；成就美国宪法和联邦制度的政治经典《联邦党人文集》；激励无数年轻人的世界上最著名的自传《富兰克林自传》；影响美国五代人的经典教科书《美国语文读本》；美国哲学和美式生活方式的代表之作《实用主义》；美国移民人手一册的人生指南《穷理查智慧书》；点燃美国20世纪60年代性解放运动的性学经典《金赛性学报告》；来自美国总统世家的对教育的反思与批判《亨利·亚当斯的教育》；出版史上的奇迹、永远的励志畅销书《人性的弱点》，等等。 这套“塑造美国的88本书”丛书将自始至终贯彻严肃认真的学风和生动活泼的文风，分辑陆续推出。 约四百年前，弗朗西斯·培根在《伟大的复兴》一书序言中，曾经这样谈到书中描述的对象，他“希望人们不要把它看作一种意见，而要看作是一项事业，并相信我们在这里所做的不是为某一宗派或理论奠定基础，而是为人类的福祉和尊严……”我们怀着真挚的感情，把这段话献给“塑造美国的88本书”丛书的读者，希望广大读者关心她、批评她、帮助她。 让她成为我们共同的事业。 中青文传媒 “塑造美国的88本书”丛书编委会 2013年6月 目录 常 识 序 言 论政府的起源与目的，并简评英国政体 论君主制和世袭制 对北美目前形势的思考 论北美目前的能力，以及其他一些想法 附 记 关于土地的公平问题 作者自序 土地公平论 基金的创建方式 实施本方案，同时利用它促进公共利益的方法 Common Sense Introduction Of the Origin and Design of Government in General. With Concise Remarks on the English Constitution Of Monarchy and Hereditary Succession Thoughts on the Present State of American Affairs Of the Present Ability of America, with some Miscellaneous Reflections Appendix Agrarian Justice Author's English Preface Agrarian Justice Means by which the Fund is to be Created Means for Carrying the Proposed Plan into Execution, and to Render it at the Same Time Conducive to the Public Interest Common Sense 常 识 论政府的起源与目的，并简评英国政体 论君主制与世袭制 对北美目前形势的思考 论北美目前的能力，以及其他一些想法 序 言 这本书里的观点也许还不够流行，难以取得广泛的认同。长久以来，从不质疑的习惯使人产生一种幻觉，似乎那便是正确的，而质疑会立刻引发捍卫传统的可怕呼声。但是，喧嚣会很快平息，时间比理性更能让人改变观念。 权力长期地、暴虐地被滥用，向来是导致人们质疑权力正当性的主要原因（其他事物也是这样，如果不是受害者被压迫过度以至愤起追讨说法，它们很可能永远都不会被质疑）。英国国王行使自身的权力，来支持议会的权力，这片土地上的善良人民正遭受着沉重的双重压迫（编者注：双重指国王与议会）。毫无疑问，人民有权质疑这二者的权力正当性，并同样有权拒绝任何一方的侵犯。 在下文中，作者刻意回避了那些个人化的东西。这本书里不会出现对个人的赞美或批评，智者并不需要借助一本小册子的成功来为自己扬名；而那些愚钝的、带着敌意的人，只要不刻意强迫他们改变意见，他们自然会慢慢消停。 美洲的事业，在很大程度上是全人类的事业。很多已经出现或可能出现的情况，并不是地方性的，而是普遍性的，它们影响到所有热爱人类的人们所坚守的原则，触动了他们的切身利益。这片在战火中荒凉的土地，这个向全人类自然权利的压迫者宣战并因捍卫权利而遭到血腥镇压的大陆，牵动了所有被赋予自然感情的人们的心。这些人当中便有本书作者，无论他是否会遭到政治责难。 此外，为了收集任何试图反驳独立主张的意见，本书新版本的出版时间被延后了。现在，既然没有人站出来反对这个主张，那么，我们就此假定没有人有异议，而公众也已经花了足够长的时间来思考这个问题。 这本书的作者是谁，读者并不需要知道，读者的注意对象应该是理论本身，而不是人。然而，需要说明的是：作者并不属于任何一个党派，也不受任何一个公共或私人组织的控制，这本书只依赖于理性与原则。 1776年2月14日于费城 论政府的起源与目的，并简评英国政体 有些人将社会和政府混为一谈，对这两个概念没有多少区分，甚至完全没有区分。但是，这两个概念不但有区别，而且起源也不同。社会源于我们的欲望，政府则产生于我们的邪恶。前者汇集我们的情感，从正面增进我们的幸福，后者抑制我们的恶行，从负面推动我们的幸福；前者鼓励人们相互交流，后者却制造阶层间的差异。前者是守护者，后者是惩戒者。 无论在任何状态下，社会都是人民的福祉。可是政府呢，即使在最好的情况下，也只是一种必要之恶；在最糟糕的情况下，则令人无法忍受。这是因为当我们忍受着或面临着由政府带来的苦难时，虽然这样的苦难在一个无政府的国家里也可能遇到，但只要想到是我们亲手制造了这个苦难的根源，我们便会感到格外痛心。政府，就像伊甸园的衣服一样，是丧失纯真的标志，国王的宫殿建立在天堂亭榭的废墟上。这是因为，倘若良心的召唤是清晰、坚定、不容抗拒的，人类就不需要再有其他立法者。但是，正因为情形不是如此，人们便发现有必要放弃一部分个人财产，来建立起保护自己其他财产的机制。就像在处理其他事情时一样，审慎的原则提醒人们两害相权取其轻。既然安全是设立政府的意图和目的，那么毫无疑问，无论是何种形式，能花费最小代价而获得最大利益的就是所有人都愿意接受的。 为了更清楚、更明确地理解政府的意图和目的，让我们假设这样一种场景：在世界上某个偏僻角落里居住着一小群人，与世隔绝，他们代表着在任何国家或整个世界上定居的第一批人。在这种天然的自由状态下，他们首先想到的是组成社会。有无数条理由促使他们这样做：凭个人的力量不足以满足他的需求，他的精神状态无法适应长久的孤独，等等。因此，他很快就不得不向他人寻求帮助或慰藉，而后者也会反过来向他提出同样需求。只要四五个人团结起来，就能在旷野中建起一间还算不错的小屋，但单个人可能穷尽一生却一事无成。他能伐倒一株大树，却没法搬走它；就算能搬动它，也没法将它立起来。同时，饥饿会迫使他中断工作，每个不同的需求都需要他做不同的事情。疾病都可能导致死亡，更别提厄运和灾难。就算不足以致命，也可能令他丧失生活能力，让他陷入一种与其说是活着，不如说是等待死亡的状态。 因此，就像万有引力一样，需求很快推动我们这些刚到的移民组成社会。在社会成员彼此公正、真诚相待的情况下，成员之间的相互扶助替代了法律规定和政府管制，也使后者变得毫无必要。但是，除了天堂以外，任何地方都可能孕育邪恶。在人们克服了移民初期遇到的困难——正是这些困难最初使他们紧密团结在一起，他们开始懈怠于自己的义务，也减轻了对彼此的依赖。这种懈怠意味着有必要建立某种形式的政府，来弥补道德上的缺陷。 只要一棵位置适宜的大树，就能成为他们的集会场地。整个聚居区的居民都能聚集在树荫下，讨论公共事务。很可能，他们最初的法律只是一些简单条例，唯一的惩罚措施则是公众的蔑视。在这种最初的议会中，每个人都自然而然地拥有一个席位。 但是，随着聚居区的扩大，公共事务也会随之增加，大家居住的距离越来越分散，要想每次集会都把所有人召集起来，就变得非常困难了。现在已经不像当初，那时居民人数很少，住的地方挨得很近，公共事务数量很少，而且琐碎。现在的情形表明，把立法事务授权给从全体居民中选择出的一部分人来管理，更为方便可行。这些代表应该与委任他们的人有同样的利害关系，并且处理事务的方式也应该和全体居民都在场时一样。如果聚居地继续扩大，就有必要增加代表的数量。为了保证聚居地每个部分的利益都被充分考虑到，人们会发现，最好是把整个聚居地划分为几个大小合适的区域，每个区域委派出相应人数的代表。为了确保当选代表绝不会谋求与选民们不同的利益，审慎原则提醒我们，有必要经常进行选举，这样一来，几个月后当选代表能够重新回到并融入全体选民中。由于考虑到以权谋私的后果，他们对公众的忠诚度便得以保障。同时，这种频繁的角色互换会在社会的每个部分产生共同的利害关系，人们之间会自然而然地相互支持。政府的力量和被统治者的幸福便是依赖于这个基础，而不是毫无实际意义的帝王之名。 这便是政府的起源和发展。换句话说，软弱的道德品行本身不足以统治世界，因此有必要采用政府管理模式，这也是成立政府的出发点和目的，即自由与安全。尽管这个纷乱杂陈的世界会迷惑我们的眼睛，声音会欺骗我们的耳朵，偏见会扭曲我们的意志，利益会迷住我们的心窍，但自然和理性却会用最朴素的声音告诉我们：这样做是对的。 我对政权形式的理解基于自然界的一条原则，这条原则是人力无法推翻的，那就是：一件事物越是简单，就越不容易出问题，即使出了问题也比较容易被修复。依据这条原则，我想对备受吹捧的英国政体发表一些看法。当前的英国政体诞生于黑暗的奴隶制社会，对那个时代而言，它无疑是先进的。当整个世界都处于专制暴政下的时候，哪怕最轻微的改进都是伟大的进步。但显而易见的是，英国政体并不完善，容易引发社会动乱，也没有能力兑现自己的承诺。 绝对的专制政府（虽然它们是人性的耻辱）也是有好处的，那就是：它们很简单。如果人们遭受苦难，他们知道自己苦难的源头，也知道补救的方法，不会在形形色色的原因和解决方法中迷茫困惑。但是，英国政体极其复杂，以至于在整个国家经受了多年的苦难后，也没能发现症结所在。有些人说在这里，另一些人说在那里，每个政治医生都会开出不同的药方。 我知道，要克服狭隘的或长期的偏见很困难。但是，如果仔细审视英国政体的组成部分，我们便会发现：它包含了两种古老专制政体的遗留物，再混合了一些共和制的新元素。 首先，以国王为代表的君主专制遗存。 其次，以上议院为代表的贵族专制遗存。 最后，以下议院为代表的新的共和政体的成分，他们的品格决定了英国的自由。 前两者是世袭的，与人民毫无关系。从政体意义上说，它们对英国的自由毫无裨益。 如果说英国政体是这三种权力相互制衡的统一，未免可笑，要么这几个词毫无意义，要么它们彼此自相矛盾。 当我们说下议院能制约国王权力时，这种说法隐含了两个前提： 首先，在没有人监督的情况下，国王是不可信任的，换个方式说，对绝对权力的渴望是君主制的天然弊端。 其次，被委任监督国王行为的下议院，要么比国王更睿智，要么比他更值得信任。 但是，这同一个政体既授予下议院制约国王的权力，允许他们反对国王的财政预算；又授权国王牵制下议院，允许他否决下议院的其他法案。这样的做法无疑是在假定国王比那些本应比他更聪明的人更聪明，多么荒唐！ 在君主制政体中，还有一些极其可笑的地方：它先是剥夺了一个人获得信息的手段，然后又授权他在需要最明智决断的事情上做出决策。国王的生存环境使他昧于世事，但身为国王的职责却又要求他世事洞明。这两种不同的方面，不自然地互相对立、彼此损耗，由此证明整个君主制政体是荒唐无用的。 有些人是这样解释英国政权的。他们说，国王是一回事，人民是另一回事；上议院的贵族们代表国王的利益，而下议院的议员们则代表人民的利益，这就好比一个议会里存在彼此对立的两个派别一样。尽管这种说法看起来很有道理，但一旦仔细审视，就会发现它措辞空洞，意思含糊不清。这样的情形经常发生：如果用最华美的词藻去描述某些要么根本不存在、要么过于复杂无法用言语表达的事物，它们就成了一些只有声音的词汇，听着很动听，却无法传递出任何信息。因此，这种解释掩盖了一个先决问题，那就是：国王是如何得到这种人民不敢给予且需要一直牵制的权力的？这样的权力不可能来自于明智的人民。任何需要被牵制的权力，也不可能来源于上帝。然而，英国政体却允许这种权力的存在。 但是，这种安排却无法起到应有的作用。这样的政体要么没有能力，要么不想去满足人民的愿望，这整个安排无异于自杀。天平上较重的那一头总是会翘起较轻的那一头，一部机器的所有轮子也总是由其中一个来带动的，因此，现在只需要知道英国政体中的哪一部分分量较重，它就是统治势力。尽管其他势力或这些势力中的一部分也可能阻碍或牵制整体运转速度，但只要它们没能力让它停下来，它们的努力就是徒劳的。第一驱动力最终将如愿以偿，它在速度上的缺憾也将被时间所弥补。 王权是英国政权中的决定性势力，这一点已经毋庸赘述。仅仅通过授予官职和津贴，王权就确立了现在的影响力，这点是显而易见的。看来，尽管我们明智地关闭了绝对专制的大门，并上了锁，但同时愚蠢地把钥匙交到国王手中。 英国人对他们这个由国王、上议院和下议院共同组成的政府偏爱有加，这种偏爱一半来自理智，一半来自民族自傲，甚或后半的成分居多。毫无疑问，与一些其他国家相比，人们在英国更为安全。但是，国王的意志就是法律，这点在英国和在法国是一致的。唯一的区别在于，在英国，国王的意志并不是直接从他的口中传达出来，而是通过更令人敬畏的国会法案的形式被传递给人民。查理一世的命运[1]只是让后世的国王们变得更加含蓄，而不是更加公正。 因此，一旦撇开所有的民族自豪感和对某种政体模式的偏爱，一个显而易见的事实是：英国国王之所以不像土耳其国王那么暴虐，完全归因于人民的品质，而不是政府形式。 在眼下这个时候，探讨英国政权形式的体制上的弊端是十分必要的。原因是，如果继续受某种强烈的偏爱所影响，我们就永远无法公平地看待他人；同样地，如果仍然禁锢于某种顽固的偏见，我们就永远无法公正地对待自己。正如一个眷恋娼妓的男人不适合选择或评价妻子一样，任何偏袒某种腐朽政体的先入为主的思想，也都会使我们无法辨别出一个良好的政体。 [1] 查理一世是英国历史上唯一一位被公开处死的国王。 论君主制和世袭制 人人生而平等，这样的平等只能被后天环境所摧毁。贫富差距可以得到很好的解释，而且在解释时无须使用压迫、贪婪这类刺耳的字眼。压迫往往是富裕的结果，而不是致富的手段。至于贪婪，尽管它能让人避免陷入穷困潦倒的境地，但通常来说，它也会使人太过怯懦，难以致富。 但是，还有一种更重要的差别，无法用任何自然的或宗教的原因来解释，那就是：为什么人们会被分为“国王”与“臣民”。男人与女人是自然的产物，善行与恶行是上帝的旨意，但有一类人生来地位就高于他人，像是某个新物种似的高贵显赫，这种情形值得探究。同样值得探究的是，他们给人类带来的究竟是幸福，还是苦难？ 根据《圣经》记载，在世界诞生之初，这世上并没有国王。既没有国王，也就没有战争，正是国王们的骄傲把人类卷入战争。荷兰没有国王，所以它在过去一个世纪里享受的和平比欧洲的任何君主制国家都要多。历史也印证了这一点。最初的宗族长老们享受着静谧的田园生活，但随着犹太王权的诞生，这种宁静就消失了。 君主制政权首先是由异教徒创立的，然后犹太人承袭了这个体制。这是魔鬼着手推动偶像崇拜推出的最成功的发明。异教徒们把他们死去的王奉为神灵，到基督教时更进了一步，为在世的国王也冠上神的光环。把神的威严赋予尘世间的一个小人物，无论他如何闪耀，必走向衰败，这是一件多么亵渎圣灵的事情！ 把一个人高高抬升于他人之上，这不但不符合自然的平等原则，也无法从《圣经》上找到根据。因为基甸[1]和先知撒母耳[2]所公布的上帝的旨意，分明是不赞同王权政治的。《圣经》中所有反对君主制的内容，都被君主制政府巧妙地掩盖了。但是，它们无疑值得那些尚未建立政权的国家注意。“恺撒的物当归给恺撒”[3]，这是王室遵循的《圣经》上的教义，但它并不能成为支持君主制政权的根据，因为当时犹太人还没有国王，仍在罗马人统治之下。 从摩西记述的创世纪以来，三千年过去了，犹太人出于对国家的幻想，要求设立国王。在此之前，他们的政府形式（除了在上帝干预的几次特殊情况外）是一种由士师和部族长老共同管理的共和制。他们没有国王，除了上帝，视任何人为王都是一种罪恶。如果认真反思国王所得到的偶像般的崇拜，人们就不会诧异上帝也嫉妒他们的荣光，因此反对这种亵渎上帝特权的政权形式。 在《圣经》中，君主制是犹太人的原罪之一，他们也因此受到了诅咒，这件事情的相关历史值得研究。 以色列人的后裔受到米甸人的压迫，基甸率领一小支军队向米甸人发起进攻。由于神的介入，基甸的军队获胜了。欢呼雀跃的犹太人将胜利归功于基甸的统率能力，提议拥他为王。他们说：“愿你和你的儿孙管理我们。”这是最强烈的诱惑，不仅是王位，而且是世袭的王位。但是，基甸出于虔敬之心，回答道：“我不管理你们，我的儿孙也不管理你们，惟有耶和华管理你们。”这话再清楚不过了。基甸并不是在拒绝这个荣耀，而是认为犹太人没有给予他这份荣耀的权力。他也没有用矫情客套的话来感谢他们，而是用先知的磊落语气责备犹太人叛离了他们真正的君王，即上帝。 大约一百三十年后，犹太人又犯了同样的错误。犹太人对异教徒偶像崇拜的渴望有时真让人难以理解。先知撒母耳的两个儿子受命管理一些世俗事务，人们发现他们两人行为不端，便吵吵嚷嚷地来到撒母耳面前，对他说：“你年纪老迈了，你儿子不行你的道。现在求你为我们立一个王治理我们，像列国一样。”这里我们看到，他们的动机是恶劣的，因为他们想像其他国家一样（也就是异教徒们）。而他们真正的荣耀却在于和他们不同，差别越大越好。但是，他们说“求你为我们立一个王”这件事使撒母耳很不高兴，他就祷告耶和华。耶和华对撒母耳说：“百姓向你说的一切话，你只管依从。因为他们不是厌弃你，乃是厌弃我，不要我做他们的王。自从我领他们出埃及到如今，他们常常离弃我，伺奉别神，现在他们向所行的，是照他们素来所行的。故此你要依从他们的话，只是当警戒他们，告诉他们将来那王怎样管辖他们。”这里指的并不是某个特定的国王，而是以色列人急于效仿的尘世间所有国王的通常做法。尽管所处的时代不同，国王们的行事方式也不同，但本质却是一样的。于是，撒母耳把耶和华所讲的一切话都告诉那些向他要求一个王的民众，说：“管辖你们的王必这样行：他必派你们的儿子为他赶车、跟马，奔走在车前。”（这段描述符合当前统治者使役他人的行为。）“又派他们做千夫长、五十夫长，为他耕种田地、收割庄稼，打造军器和车上的器械；必取你们的女儿为他制造香膏、做饭烤饼。”（这段话既描述了国王的穷奢极欲，也说出了他对人民的压迫。）“也必取你们最好的田地、葡萄园、橄榄园，赐给他的臣仆。你们的粮食和葡萄园所出的，他必取十分之一给他的太监和臣仆。”（由此我们可以看到，贪污、腐败和偏私都是国王惯有的恶习。）“又必取你们的仆人婢女、健壮的少年和你们的驴，供他的差役。你们的羊群，他必取十分之一，你们也必做他的仆人。那时你们必因所选的王哀求耶和华，耶和华却不应允你们。”这便解释了君主制度下人民的生活情况。尽管历史上也曾出现过几位优秀的国王，但他们的品行既不足以使这个名号神圣化，也无法抹去君主制度的原罪。《圣经》上对大卫王的赞誉，并不是因为他身为国王的作为，而仅仅是因为他是一个符合上帝心意的人。然而，百姓竟不肯听撒母耳的话，说：“不然，我们定要一个王治理我们，使我们像列国一样，有王治理我们，统领我们，为我们争战。”撒母耳继续规劝他们，但没有效果。他指出他们这样做是忘恩负义，但仍是枉然。看到他们一意孤行地要做这件愚蠢的事，撒母耳喊叫起来：“我求告耶和华，他必打雷降雨（这是一种惩罚，因为当时正是麦收季节），使你们又知道又看出，你们求立王的事，是在耶和华面前犯大罪了。”于是，撒母耳求告耶和华，耶和华就在这日打雷降雨，众民便甚惧怕耶和华和撒母耳。众民对撒母耳说：“求你为仆人们祷告耶和华你的神，免得我们死亡，因为我们求立王的事，正是罪上加罪了。”《圣经》里的这些部分记载得清楚而肯定，不允许任何模棱两可的解释。在这里，要么上帝对君主制政府表达了不满是确有其事的，要么《圣经》记载有误。人们有充分的理由相信，在天主教国家，牧师们与国王们一样，都试图不让人们了解《圣经》上的这些内容，因为君主制与教皇制在本质上是一样的。 除了罪恶的君主制以外，我们又增加了世袭制度。前者是我们自身的堕落与贬损，而被宣称为权力的后者却是对我们子孙后代的侮辱与欺骗。因为人人生而平等，没有人生来就拥有让自己的家庭永远凌驾于他人之上的权力。即使他自己能赢得同时代人的一些尊重，他的子孙也未必拥有继承这种尊重的资格。能证明世袭制度荒谬性最强有力的证据之一，是天道反对这种制度。否则，它就不会屡次安排愚蠢的人继承王位，使它成为笑柄。 其次，起初没有人能拥有任何社会头衔，都是别人授予的职位，所以这些授予头衔的人并没有权利送出子孙后代的权利。尽管他们可以说：“我们立你做我们的王。”他们却不能说：“你的子孙和你子孙的子孙也要永世做我们后代子孙的王。”这种说法对他们的后人明显是不公正的。这样一种不明智的、不公平且违反常理的协议可能（而且是很可能）将他们的下一代人推入恶棍或蠢才的政府统治下。绝大多数有识之士都在私底下鄙弃世袭制，然而，世袭制是那种一旦确立就不容易消除的弊害之一。许多人因恐惧而屈服，另一些人因迷信而顺从，而那些有权有势的人则与国王一起欺掠百姓。 我们通常以为当今的国王们都拥有高贵的出身，然而最可能的事实是，当我们揭开历史的黑暗面纱，追溯他们最初的发迹史，我们会发现：他们的祖先只不过是一群作恶多端的盗匪头子。他们的野蛮行径或阴险手段为他赢得了强匪中的首领地位，随着势力的增强和掠夺范围的扩大，他震慑住那些平静生活、手无寸铁的普通百姓，迫使他们靠频繁进贡来换取他们的安全。然而，那些推选他的人无意将世袭权赋予他的后裔，因为这样做意味着永远放弃统治权，而这与他们信奉的自由和不受约束的原则背道而驰。因此，在君主制初期出现的世袭继承不可能是一种理所当然的权力，只是一种临时的或补充的手段。但是，由于那个时代只留下很少或几乎没有留下任何记录，口耳相传的历史又充斥着虚构的故事，因此隔了几代人之后，就很容易趁机捏造出一些当时可以顺利散布的、像关于异教始祖的传说般迷信的鬼话，来向那些愚昧的百姓灌输世袭权的正当性。在老首领去世、选举新首领的过程中可能引发的混乱（在强匪当中进行的选举不可能是井然有序的）使许多人感到惊恐，因此起初便赞同世袭继承的主张。世袭制就这样出现了，一开始只是种权宜之计，后来却硬被声称为权利。 自从英国被诺曼底公爵征服以来，只出现过几个贤明的君王，绝大多数的时间是在恶王的统治下痛苦呻吟。任何一个有理性的人都不会认为自征服者威廉一世以来的世袭权是光彩的，一个法国杂种率领一帮武装暴匪在英国登陆，违背当地人的意愿自立为王，毫不客气地说，这样的发迹史是可憎可鄙的，这样的行为与神性毫无关系。但是，我们根本没必要花时间揭穿世袭制的荒唐之处。倘若有人弱智到相信这种制度，就让他们去吧，让他们不分青红皂白地去崇拜雄狮和蠢驴。我既不会效仿他们的愚昧，也不会妨碍他们的愚忠。 但是，我很想问问：他们觉得最初的国王是如何产生的？这个问题只可能有三个答案：抽签、选举或篡位。如果最初的国王是通过抽签产生的，这就为后世立了先例，排除了世袭继承的可能。扫罗是靠抽签成为以色列国王的，因此王位的继承就不是世袭的，并且从这件事的整个过程来看，也没有任何世袭继承的意图。如果某个国家的首任国王是靠选举产生的，这也会为后世立下先例。这是因为，如果说第一批选民在选举国王的时候，选出的不但是他们自己的王，而且选出某个世代承袭的王室家族，从而剥夺了后世所有人的权利——这样的说法，除了关于人类的自由意志都断送在亚当之手这一原罪的教义以外，无论在《圣经》里或其他文献中都是绝无仅有的。在这个类比中（除此之外，别无其他相似的例子），世袭制根本毫无荣耀可言。由于亚当的行为，所有人都犯了罪；由于第一代选民的行为，所有人都必须遵从。因亚当的罪，所有人服从于撒旦；因第一代选民的错，所有人都屈从于国王。前者令我们失去了纯真，后者令我们丧失了主权。在两种情况下，我们都被剥夺了曾经的某种状态或特权。因此，一个无可辩驳的推论是：原罪和世袭制是一致的。多么可耻的类比！多么难堪的相似！然而，即使是最高明的雄辩家，也无法给出更好的辩驳。 至于篡权，没有人鲁莽到敢于为它辩护。征服者威廉一世是篡位者，这个事实无可辩驳。显而易见的是，英国君主制政权的历史经不起深究。 然而，世袭制影响人类的主要方面，并不在于它的荒诞性，而在于它所造成的危害。倘若，它能保证继承王位者都是些优秀且睿智的君王，倒也算是得到神权的特许。但是，当它为那些愚蠢的、邪恶的、下流的庸人们打开大门时，它便有了压迫的性质。那些自恃生来就应统治他人和视人为天生奴隶的人，很快就会变得傲慢无礼、横行霸道。由于从所有人当中被区分出来，他们从小心理就为妄自尊大所毒害。他们生活的小圈子与外面的广阔天地差别太大，几乎没有机会了解整个社会的真正利益所在。因此，当他们继承王位的时候，常常对整个国家的事情毫无所知，不配加以处理。 世袭制的另外一项危害在于，王位有可能被任何年龄的未成年人继承。在这种情况下，以国王名义行事的摄政者就有充分的动机和机会来辜负先王的信任。当一个国王年老体衰、时日不多的时候，同样的国家悲剧也可能发生。在这两种情形下，恶棍们都可能利用因国王的衰老或年幼所带来的愚蠢行为，将人民玩弄于鼓掌之中。 用来维护世袭制最貌似合理的理由是：它能使一个国家避免陷入内战。倘若这一点是正确的，倒也颇有分量。但是，它却是曾对人类进行欺骗的最赤裸裸的谎言。整个英国的历史都否认有这种说法。自从威廉一世征服英国以来，共有三十名国王与两名幼王统治过这个分崩离析的国家。其间，包括革命在内，曾发生过不少于八次的内战，以及十九次武装叛乱。由此可见，世袭制不但没有带来和平，而且对和平有害，它破坏了和平赖以存在的根基。 约克家族与兰卡斯特家族之间对王位与继承权的争夺，使英国在很长一段时间内都沦为血腥的战场。[4]亨利与爱德华之间一共发生了十二次大规模战争，以及一些小规模的遭遇战和攻围战。亨利曾两次沦为爱德华的阶下囚，爱德华也曾被亨利俘虏。当一点私人事务都能引发争斗的时候，战争的走向与民心的向背就变得捉摸不定。因为获胜，亨利从阶下囚一跃登上王位，而爱德华从王位上被赶下，被迫流亡国外。但是，就像性情的瞬间变化不会持续很久一样，亨利很快被逐下王位，而爱德华被召回来继任——国会永远站在强者的那一边。 这场王位争夺战从亨利六世即位时起，一直到亨利七世时两个家族联姻后才完全结束。从1422年起至1489年止，长达67年。 总而言之，君主制与世袭制（并不只限于某个特定王室）使整个世界陷入腥风血雨之中。这种政权模式是上帝在《圣经》中明确反对的，也总是伴随着血腥。 如果我们探究一下国王的日常事务就会发现，在某些国家中，国王们根本无事可做。他们庸碌无为地度过一生，自身既无法享受到乐趣，对整个国家也毫无益处。然后，他们退出王位，让继任者同样百无聊赖地重蹈覆辙。在绝对专制的政体中，所有的政府事务都落在国王一人身上，无论是军事或民政。以色列人的后代要求设一个王，他们恳求的是：“有王治理我们，统领我们，为我们争战。”但是，在英国这样的国家中，国王既不是统帅，也不是将军。人们不免感到困惑：那他究竟做了些什么？ 任何一个越接近共和制的政府，留给国王做的事情就越少。要给英国政权起一个合适的名字，多少有些困难。威廉·梅雷迪思爵士称它为共和国，但是，从它目前的状态来看，是名不副实的。因为国王拥有任意安排一切官职的权力，王位的腐败势力已经有效地侵吞了下议院（英国政体中的共和部分）的权力，并腐蚀了后者的美德。这样一来，英国政权就和法国或西班牙的政权近乎一样，是实质上的君主制。人们总是在还没有理解一些名称之前，就为它们争执不休。英国政权中令英国人引以为傲的是它的共和制部分，即从人民中挑选出下议院成员的自由，而不是它的君主制部分。不难看出，一旦政体中的共和制成分消失了，压迫与奴役也就接踵而来。为什么英国政体如此孱弱？是否因为其中的君主制成分已经毒害了共和制成分，国王已经蛊惑了下议院？ 在英国，国王除了发动战争、安排官职外，几乎没有其他事情可做。换句话说，国王只会使国家陷入贫穷与纷争中。对于一个每年能领取八十万英镑、享受万民景仰的人来说，这可真是件不错的差使！在上帝的眼里，对于社会来说，一个诚实的人要比从古到今所有这些戴着王冠的恶棍们都更有价值。 [1] 参见《旧约全书·士师记》。 [2] 参见《旧约全书·撒母耳记》。 [3] 参见《新约全书·马可福音》。 [4] 1455—1485年，持续30年之久，约克王朝和兰卡斯特王朝的争斗。 对北美目前形势的思考 在下文中，我只会向大家提供简单的事实、清晰的论证和常识。对于读者，我只希望你们能摒弃成见，用理性与情感独立做出判断；希望你们能坚持，而非远离个人的真正品格，并尽量开阔自己的视野，不局限于当前的形势。 对于英国与美国之间的斗争，已经有不少论述。各个阶层的人出于不同动机，怀着不同目的，纷纷投入到这场论战中。但是，所有这些争论都徒劳无功，而论战也已经结束。作为最后的手段，武力将决定这场争论的结果。这是英国国王的选择，北美大陆也已经接受了这个挑战。 据报道，已故的佩勒姆先生（他是位很有能力的首相，但也曾犯了一些过错）曾在下议院遭到攻击，对方指责他在英美关系问题上采取的举措只是临时的缓兵之计，对此他回应道：“它们至少能在我的任期内长久实行。”如果在当前的斗争中，各殖民地也抱有这种致命的懦弱想法，那么，我们这些所谓先人的名字将被子孙后代唾弃。 这是普天之下最有价值的事业，它并不只关系到一个乡镇、一个城市、一个省或一个国家，而是关系到一个大陆——至少占世界可居住面积的八分之一。它并不是一天、一年或一辈子就能完成的事业，我们的子孙后代也被卷入其中，并或多或少地受到当前正在进行的事情的影响，这种影响甚至会永远存在。现在是北美大陆团结一致、产生信心和荣耀的关键时期。现在看来最微小的裂痕，都会像在橡树幼苗上用针尖刻下的名字，伤痕会随着橡树苗的成长而变大，到我们的子孙后代，便能清晰地读出这个名字。 当我们放弃争论、决定用武力解决这个问题的时候，一个新的政治时代开启了，一种崭新的思维方式诞生了。 4月19日之前，也就是对抗开始之前[1]提出的方案和建议，就像过期的年历一样，尽管当时很有用，现在却已经毫无用处。当时，不管争辩双方曾提出多么相左的意见，他们在同一点上总是达成一致，那就是与英国结盟。双方的唯一分歧只在于实现这一目的的手段：一方主张来用武力，另一方主张利用友谊。现在，第一种方法已经失败，第二种方法也已经失去效力。 关于和谈的好处，已经讨论得太多，而它却像个消逝的美梦，离我们远去。因此，我们现在需要考察和解的另一面，并探询在与英国和谈并附庸于英国的情况下，各殖民地将承受并将一直承受的严重损失。让我们本着自然与常理的原则，审视这种附庸关系，看看如果要独立的话，我们应该凭借些什么；如果附属英国的话，我们又将面临些什么。 我曾听有些人说，北美的繁荣得益于此前与英国的密切联系。这种亲密关系对大不列颠今后的繁荣是必要的，也一定会导致同样结果。这种论点真是荒谬！按照这种逻辑，我们也可以说，既然婴儿是靠喝奶长大的，它就永远都不该吃肉；或是我们前二十年是怎么过的，后二十年也应该怎么过。这种说法也违背事实，我要直截了当地说，倘若欧洲势力从未涉足美洲大陆，美洲现在照样繁荣，甚至更繁荣。美洲赖以致富的贸易对象是生活必需品，只要欧洲人还要吃饭，它就一直有市场。 还有些人说，这些欧洲国家曾保护过我们。确实，它们曾把我们放在它的垄断操纵之下，它也曾用自己的钱和我们的钱保卫过这块大陆。但是，他们也会出于同样的动机，为了维护贸易和统治权，保护土耳其。 唉！长久以来，我们被陈旧的偏见引入歧途，也为盲目迷信付出了巨大代价。我们吹嘘着大英帝国给予我们的保护，却没有反思过，这样做的动机是出于利益，而不是对我们的情感。并不是为了我们的利益抵御我们的敌人，而是为了它自身的利益抵御它的敌人，抵御那些不会因为任何原因与我们起争执，却由于我们与英国的联系将永远视我们为敌人的人。如果英国不放弃对这块大陆的主权，我们就必须主动抛弃对英国的依赖。这样，当法国和西班牙与英国作战的时候，我们仍可以和他们保持和平。上次汉诺威王朝的战争[2]造成的苦难，足以提醒我们来反对我们同英国的种种联系。 最近，议会中有人声称，倘若没有相同的宗主国，北美各殖民地之间丝毫没有任何联系。换句话说，宾夕法尼亚州、泽西州，和其他州之间，之所以是姊妹殖民地，是因为有英国的缘故。这实在是一种拐弯抹角证明关系的说法，但它却是最直接的，也是唯一真实的证明敌对关系（姑且这么称呼它）的方法：如果我们不是大不列颠的臣民，法国和西班牙从来不是，也许永远也不会是北美人的敌人。 但这些人说，英国是我们的宗主国。既然这样，它的行为就更加可耻。虎毒尚且不食子，野蛮人也不至于向自己的家人兵戈相向。因此，这种说法如果成立，反而是对英国的谴责。但是，这种说法偏偏不成立，或者只是部分成立。英国国王和他的家奴们阴险地采用了“宗主国”或“母国”的称谓，企图卑劣地利用人们心地老实的弱点，不正当地施加天主教的影响力。欧洲，而非英国，才是北美的宗主国。这片新大陆已经成为欧洲各地崇尚人权自由、宗教自由却惨遭迫害的人们的避难所。他们并不是从母亲温暖的怀抱中，而是从恶魔残忍的爪牙中逃亡到这里。有种对英国的说法是真实的，那就是曾经把首批移民驱逐出故乡的专制政府现在仍在迫害着这些移民的后代子孙。 在这片广袤的占世界四分之一的土地上，我们遗忘了那三百六十英里（英国的地域长度）的狭窄疆域，将友谊提升到更广阔的空间。我们将每个来自欧洲的基督徒视为兄弟，并为这种宽广豁达的胸怀欢欣鼓舞。令人欣喜的是，随着对世界认识的增加，我们逐渐克服了地域性偏见的影响。一个出生在英国任何教区的人，很自然地只会与他的同区教友交往（因为在许多场合下，他们的利益总是一致的），称他们为“邻居”。如果在离家几英里外的地方见到这个邻居，他便抛下同一条街道的狭隘想法，称呼对方为“同乡”。倘若离开出生的郡县，在其他郡县里遇到这位同乡，他便忘却了街道与城镇的狭小地域，将对方称为“同胞”，也就是来自同一个郡县的人。但是，要是他们出国游历，在法国或欧洲其他国家碰面，他们之间的称谓便会扩大为“英国人”。以此类推，所有在美洲大陆或世界上任何其他地方相聚的欧洲人，彼此间都是“同胞”。因为与整个世界相比，英国、荷兰、德国或瑞士彼此间的关系，就如同与一个国家相比，街道、城镇和郡县彼此间的关系一样——对于按大陆划分世界的人来说，这样的区分太过渺小。即使是在本州（指宾夕法尼亚州），也只有不到三分之一的居民是英国人的后裔。因此，我反对把英国视为宗主国或母国，这种提法是错误的、自私的、狭隘的和片面的。 然而，就算承认我们都是英国人的后裔，又能怎样？什么都不能。英国既然已经成为我们公开的敌人，就抹去了它所有其他名分。说什么和解是我们的责任，未免荒谬。英国当代王室的第一任国王（征服者威廉一世）原本是法国人，英国有半数贵族都是法国人的后裔。按这个说法，英国就应该受法国的统治。 对于英国与美洲各殖民地联合起来的问题，也已经有过许多论述。有人说，一旦二者联手，便能对抗这个世界。但这仅仅是个假设，战争的结果不可捉摸。而且，这种说法本身也毫无意义，因为北美大陆绝不愿意耗竭自己的人力，在亚洲、非洲或欧洲战场上支援英国军队。 更何况，我们为什么要对抗这个世界？我们的目的是商业贸易。如果处理得当，贸易将为我们赢得与整个欧洲的和平与友谊。因为，支持美洲大陆成为自由港，这符合整个欧洲的利益。北美与其他国家的贸易将始终会是北美的屏障，而它金、银的缺乏则会使它免遭侵略。 我要求那些最热衷于和谈的鼓吹者指出与英国结盟可以得到的好处，哪怕一条也行。我强调这项要求，因为在我看来，北美根本得不到任何好处。我们的玉米在欧洲的任何市场上都会得到合理价位，而进口的商品无论来自哪里，我们都必须为之付钱。 但是，与英国结盟将带给我们的伤害和弊端却是难以胜数的。无论是为了整个人类，还是为了我们自己，我们都必须反对结盟。因为任何对英国的臣服和依附，都会将这块大陆直接扯入欧洲的战争和争端中，并让我们与那些本愿意和我们建立友谊的国家交恶。对于这些国家，我们原本并没有愤怒或不满。欧洲既然是我们的贸易市场，我们就不应该只与其中一部分国家建立联系。避开欧洲的内部争端，符合美洲的真正利益。但是，在依附英国的情况下，它就无法游离于纷争之外，只能成为英国政治天平上的一枚小小的法码。 欧洲由于国家林立，难以得到长久的和平。一旦英国与任何外国势力爆发战争，由于北美与英国的密切关系，在贸易上就会遭到破坏。下一场战争的结果也许会与上一场战争[3]不同，如果是这样，现在鼓吹结盟的这些人到时候反而会更渴望独立，因为保持中立比武装对抗更能保护自身安全。一切合理的和自然的因素都在呼唤独立，被杀戮者的鲜血和大自然的哭泣声都在呼喊：“现在是独立的时候了！”甚至上帝在英国与北美之间安排的距离，都成为一个天然的、强有力的证据，证明让其中一方统治另一方绝不是上苍的旨意。除此之外，这块大陆被发现的时间和人们移居到美洲的方式也都增强了这个论证。发现美洲新大陆发生在欧洲宗教改革之前，就好像上帝仁慈地决定为未来受迫害的人们开辟一个避难所，因为故土已经无法再为他们提供安全或友谊。 大英帝国对这片土地的统治，迟早都要结束。当展望未来的时候，任何一个有识之士都不会感受到真正的快乐，因为他痛苦而真切地知道，他所谓的“当前政权”只是临时性的。作为父母，我们也无法感受到快乐，因为我们知道“这个政府”不会持续很长时间，无法保障我们留给孩子的任何财富。一个很简单的逻辑是：当我们让下一代背负债务的时候，我们必须相应地做些什么，否则，我们就只是在卑鄙可耻地利用他们罢了。要正确地认识到我们的义务，我们就应该将子孙后代考虑在内，多尽几年职责，这样的眼界高度会让我们看到被眼前的恐惧和偏见所掩盖的、一个我们不曾看过的前景。 尽管我很谨慎地避免不必要的攻讦，我仍然认为，所有支持和解原则的人大致能被分为以下几种： 利益相关者，他们不能被信任；软弱者，他们看不清事情的本质；心怀偏见者，他们不愿意看清事情的本质；还有一些把欧洲国家想象的太美好的普通人。最后这类人受错误判断的影响，他们给这个大陆带来的灾难将远远超过前三类人。 许多人有幸生活在远离悲伤的地方，罪恶并没有降临到他们门口，令他们感受到整个美洲大陆安全的岌岌可危。但是，暂且让我们想象一下波士顿吧，这片悲惨的土地将教给我们智慧，并教导我们永远放弃那个无法信任的政权。这个不幸城市的居民几个月前还生活在安逸和富足之中，现在却只能留下来挨饿，或是乞讨着背井离乡。如果他们留在这个城市，就面临着来自朋友的炮火；如果离开，又会遭到士兵的洗劫。眼下，他们是毫无救赎希望的囚徒。倘若有人试图发起进攻，来营救他们，他们又会暴露在两支军队的枪林弹雨中。 禀性迟钝的人对英国人的进犯不以为然，仍然期待着最好的结局，动不动就大声呼喊道：“来吧，来吧，等这一切结束后，我们还能继续做朋友。”那么，就让我们审视一下人类情感，再用人性这块试金石来检验一下和解主张。然后，告诉我：当一个政权把战火引到你们的土地上，你是否还能爱它、尊重它，全心全意地为它服务？如果做不到这些，你就只是在欺骗自己，而你的犹豫不决会使子孙后代遭到毁灭。英国，这个你无法热爱也无法尊重的国家，你们未来的关系将是被迫的、不自然的，仅仅是在一时便利的基础上产生的。用不了多长时间，这种关系就会倒退，结局比当初更加悲惨。如果你分辩说，你仍然能不计较这些进犯，那么我要问：你的房屋是否曾被烧毁？你的财产是否曾在你面前被破坏？你的妻儿是否还有床铺可供休息，是否还有面包赖以充饥？你家中可有父母儿女曾遭到他们的毒手，而你可曾家破人亡、颠沛流离？……倘若不曾经历过这些，你就没有资格评判那些曾经历过的人们。但是，如果你曾经历过，却还能与刽子手握手言欢，那你就不配被称为丈夫、父亲、朋友或爱人。无论在生活中取得了什么头衔或称谓，你都只有一颗懦夫的心，一个谄媚者的灵魂！ 我并不是在煽动或夸大情绪，相反，我只是用自然赋予的情感来检验这些问题。倘若没有这些情感，我们就无法履行人生的社会责任，或是享受它带来的种种幸福。我并不是想通过揭露恐怖的景象来挑起复仇情绪，只是想把我们从致命的、懦弱的昏睡中惊醒，让我们坚定地追寻某个明确的目标。只要美洲不被自己的犹豫和怯懦所吞噬，英国与欧洲是没有能力征服美洲的。倘若策略得当，眼前的严寒的价值抵得上整整一个时代。但是，如果错失或忽略了这个机会，整块大陆都将承受不幸。如果有人导致这个如此宝贵、如此重要的季节被白白浪费，无论他是谁、他是做什么的、他来自哪里，他都将成为一个千古罪人。 认为这块大陆可以长久臣服于某个外来势力的想法，不但违悖常理，违悖事物的普遍原则，也有悖于历代的各种先例，即使是英国最乐观的人也不会这么想。眼下这个时候，就算人们竭尽智慧，要不谈独立却想保证这块大陆苟安一年，是根本做不到的。和解已经是一场黄粱美梦，造化已经抛弃了与英国结盟的可能，人力也无法弥补。正如弥尔顿所说：“憎恨刻下的伤痕太深，再不会有真正的和解。” 所有争取和平的温和方法都被证明是无效的，我们的恳求被轻蔑地拒绝了。这使我们相信，没有什么东西能比反复请愿更能满足英国国王的虚荣，或更能证实他的冥顽不化——也没有什么东西能比它更助长欧洲君主们的绝对专制：丹麦和瑞典就是很好的例子。因此，既然只有斗争才能起到作用，看在上帝的份儿上，让我们来争取最后的独立吧，别让下一代人背负着这段被亵渎的、毫无意义的父子名分去继续厮杀。 说英国人以后不会再试图这么做，这种想法是一厢情愿的。当年我们废除印花税的时候，也曾这么想过，然而一两年后就意识到自己错了。按照这种逻辑，我们还可以说，那些曾经战败的国家永远都不会再挑起争端。 至于管理事务，英国没有能力以公平合理的态度来给这个大陆带来公正。美洲的事务很快就会变得繁重、复杂，由一个离我们这样遥远又对我们不了解的国家不可能轻易完成这项任务。如果不能征服我们，他们就无法统治我们。为了一件小事或一项申请，每次都得跨越三四千英里的距离，等上四五个月才有答复，然后，再花上五六个月进行解释，过不了几年，这些行为都会被认为十分愚蠢而幼稚。曾几何时，这种安排还算是合理的，但它总有结束的那一天。 那些无法保卫自己的小岛适合成为王国统治的对象，但是，认为一个大陆将永远被一个岛国统治，未免荒唐。在自然界里，从来没有任何一颗卫星大过它的行星，但英国与北美的关系却颠倒了自然界的普遍秩序。很显然，它们隶属于不同的体系：英国属于欧洲，而北美只属于它自己。 我并非出于骄傲、党派或憎恨的动机，来拥护分离与独立的主张。我清楚地、明确且真诚地相信：这样做符合这个大陆的真正利益。任何不涉及独立的方案，都只是些修修补补，无法带来长久的幸福。这样做，意味着把战争留给我们的孩子，并且在一个只要再多付出一点努力、再多前进一步就能为这块大陆争取荣耀的关键时刻退缩了。 既然英国并没有表现出一丝想和谈的意愿，我们有理由认为，不会有任何值得这块大陆接受的条件，或是任何足以弥补我们曾抛洒的鲜血和付出的财富的补偿方案。 人们努力争取的结果，总应该和他们的辛苦付出成比例。撤掉诺斯[4]，或整个可憎的私党，都远远抵不上我们的巨大付出。哪怕废除我们反对的所有议案（姑且假设它们真的能被全部废除），也只不过能抵消贸易暂时中止给我们带来的损失。但是，如果整个大陆都必须拿起武器，如果每个人都必须成为战士，仅仅反抗一届卑劣的内阁就太不值得了。昂贵，太昂贵了，如果这就是我们为废除法案所付出的代价！如果只是为了争取土地或法律，就付出班克山的代价[5]，这简直太愚蠢了。我一直认为，北美的独立是迟早的事，从最近北美大陆迅速成熟的趋势来看，它的到来不会太远了。因此，在对抗爆发后，再去争论某件事就不值得了，除非我们执意为它争个面红耳赤，因为时间会最终解决这个问题。这就像是浪费时间和精力去提起一场法律诉讼，追究房客的非法入侵，而房客的租约马上就要到期。在1775年4月19日[6]这个重要日期之前，没有人比我更热切盼望和解。但是，当我获知当天所发生事件的那一瞬间，我就永远放弃了这个铁石心肠、态度阴沉的“英国法老王”。我鄙弃这个恶棍，他僭称是“人民的父亲”，却对他们被屠杀的消息无动于衷，他的灵魂沾染了人民的鲜血，竟然还能酣然入睡！ 退一万步说，假设英国和北美得以和解，又将产生什么结果？我的回答是：这个大陆将遭到毁灭。原因如下： 首先，统治权仍然掌握在英国国王手上，他对这个大陆的所有立法都有否决权。他的所作所为已经证明，他是自由势不两立的宿敌，极度渴求专制权力。那么，难道他不会对各殖民地宣称：除非我允许，否则你们不能制订任何法律吗？！难道还有任何北美的居民如此愚昧，竟然不知道根据所谓的“现有政权”，除非得到国王允许，否则整个大陆都不能制订任何法律？难道还有人如此愚笨，在发生了这些事情之后，竟然还看不出除了那些符合他利益的法律以外，国王绝不会容许制订任何其他法律？只要北美没有自己的法律，只要我们仍必须服从英国为我们制订的法律，我们实际上就是被奴役者。达成和解后，难道没有人担心英国国王会动用他的所有力量，来迫使这个大陆尽可能卑微恭顺吗？到时候，我们不是前进，反而是倒退了，或是陷入无休止的争论或荒谬的请愿中。如今，我们已经强大得超出国王的接受程度，难道他不会想方设法地削弱我们的力量？归根到底，一个嫉妒我们繁荣富裕的政权真的适合统治我们吗？任何一个回答“不”的人，都是一个独立的人。因为“独立”的判断标准，无它，就是看我们能否自行制订法律，或是看英国国王——北美最大的敌人，是否有权告诉我们：“你们必须按照我的意愿来制订法律。” 但你也许会说，国王在英国同样拥有否决权，如果不经过他的许可，英国人民同样不能制订法律。从情理上说，这是很荒唐的。一个二十一岁的年轻人（这种情况经常发生）对数百万比他更年长、更智慧的人说：“我不允许你们的这条或那条法案成为法律。”但现在，我拒绝接受这种答复，尽管我永远不会停止揭露它的荒诞。对这个问题，我的回答是：英国是国王的权力所在地，北美却不是，因此两者的情形完全不同。相比他在英国的否决权，国王在美洲的否决权的危险性和危害程度要严重十倍。因为在英国，国王几乎不可能否决任何旨在增强英国国防力量的法案，但在北美，他绝不会允许这种法案被通过。 在英国的政治体系中，北美不过居于次要的地位。 只有在符合自身利益的情况下，英国才会考虑到美洲的利益。因此，它的自身利益促使它压制或至少干涉我们的发展，一旦这种发展无法促进它的利益。从已经发生的情况来看，在这样一个间接的政府统治下，我们很快就会陷入这种局面！人们并不会因为换了名字，就从敌人转变为朋友。为了表明现在达成和解是一种危险的方案，我断言，为了在各殖民地政府中再度确立他的地位，国王眼下要采取的政策是废除那些法案，为的是能在今后很长一段时间里通过阴谋诡计，来完成他在短期内靠武力无法完成的目的——和解与毁灭是紧密相连的。 其次，在和解的情况下，我们能期望达到的最好结果也只是一种权宜之计，或是一个处于监管下的政权。当殖民地发展成熟后，这种临时政权就无法继续存在。因此，在这段过渡期间，整体局面和形势都不稳定，前景也不乐观，移民们绝不愿意带着资产来到这样一个政府形式岌岌可危、每天都在动荡和混乱中摇摇欲坠的国家。许多现有居民也会抓住时机，处理掉他们的财产，远离这块大陆。 然而，最有力的论点是，只有独立，也就是联合殖民地的政权形式，再没有别的方式能保障大陆的和平，并确保远离内战。我担心的是，如果现在与英国和解，几乎可以肯定的是，接下来会在某些地方发生暴乱。这种局面一旦发生，其后果远比英国的一切恶意加起来都更严重。 英国人的野蛮行径已经毁掉了数千人的生活（还有数千人将遭受同样的命运）。这些人对英国的复杂情感，是我们这些不曾经历过的人所感受不到的。他们现在唯一拥有的，就是自由。他们此前所曾拥有过的一切，都已经献给为自由而战的事业。他们再没有什么可以失去，也就十分鄙弃屈服。另外，和解后各殖民地对待英国政府的普遍态度，会像一个即将成年的年轻人对青春期的态度一样：他们不再在乎它。一个无法维持和平的政府根本就不算是政府，我们缴纳的钱无异于打了水漂。倘若达成和解的第二天就爆发内乱，英国又能做什么呢？它的权力只不过是一纸空文！我曾听有些人说（当然，我相信许多人说话之前都没经过思考），他们畏惧独立，害怕独立会引发内战。未经思索的想法几乎不可能是正确的，现在的情形也是如此。与独立相比，和英国勉强维持关系危险得多。假如我也是一名受害者，我要说，如果我被逐出家园，财产被损毁，生存环境被破坏，那么，作为一个人，一个能感受到伤痛的人，我永远不会赞同和解的主张！就算大多数人选择了这个方案，我也永远不认为自己该受它的约束。 各殖民地对大陆政府展示出良好的秩序和服从精神，足以使每个通情达理的人对此感到欣喜。除非是出于幼稚可笑的原因，否则没有人有理由恐惧殖民地之间会互相争夺优势地位。 既然不存在差别，也就不存在地位优劣的问题。绝对的平等打消了一切诱惑，欧洲各共和国之间彼此（而且长久以来一直）和平相处。荷兰和瑞士与战争无缘，不管是对内或对外。诚然，君主制政府通常不会拥有长久的和平，王位本身对国内的野心家们就是个巨大的诱惑，王室不断膨胀的傲慢也会与国外势力发生冲突。但在同样的情况下，一个建立在更符合自然原则基础上的共和制政府会通过协商来解决纠纷。 如果对于独立有任何真正的担忧，那是因为还没有制定出具体方案，人们看不到前方的出路——因此，作为这项事业的开端，我提出以下建议。同时，我还需要声明一点：我并没有其他想法，提出这些建议旨在抛砖引玉。若能将这些零散的个人想法都汇集起来，它们通常能被那些聪明能干的人当作素材，为他们改良方案提供参考。 让我们每年举行一次议会，只选举一个主席。代表应更求平均，代表们只讨论国内事务，并服从大陆会议的权威。 让我们把每个殖民地分为六个、八个或十个大小合适的区域，每个地区推选出一定数量的代表，每个殖民地至少派出三十名代表，这样整个大陆会议的代表人数至少有三百九十人。每届大陆会议按照以下办法召开并选举出会议主席：代表们到场后，先通过抽签的方式从十三个殖民地中选出一个殖民地。然后，由整个大陆会议的代表从该殖民地中，用不记名投票的方式选举出一名会议主席。在下一届大陆会议中，只从剩余的十二个殖民地中抽选出一个殖民地，上届议会中产生主席的那个殖民地不在抽签之列。以此类推，直到全部十三个殖民地都轮值过一次。为了确保所通过的法律令大部分人满意，只有超过大陆会议代表人数五分之三才算是多数。在一个权力分配如此均衡的政府中，任何不和谐的行为都无异于与撒旦为伍。 但是，这项事业最初必须由谁发起、用何种方式开始，是很棘手的。看起来，由某个介于统治者与被统治者之间，也就是大陆会议和人民之间的中介团体来着手执行，这是最符合情理的。那么，就让我们依照下列方式、遵循下列宗旨来召开大陆会议吧。 大陆会议的委员会由二十六名代表组成，每个殖民地两个名额。每个州议会或州的制宪会议中选出两名委员，每州再从全体居民中产生五名代表，他们将代表整个州，由州内尽可能多的有选民资格的居民在各州首府选出；或者，如果更方便，也可以在其中两三个人口最稠密的地区产生代表。以这种方式召集的议会，在处理事务时将会结合两大原则：知识和权力。这些大陆会议、各州议会或制宪会议的代表们，在积累了处理国家事务的经验后，将成为干练而重要的议员；而整个大陆会议经过人民授权后，就具备了真正的法定权威。 大陆会议召开后，代表们的任务是制订出《大陆宪章》或《各殖民地联合宪章》（与所谓的《英国大宪章》相对应）的框架，确定大陆会议和各州议会的议员人数、议员选举方式以及会议召开的日期，并划分它们各自的职责范围和管辖权范围（要永远记住：我们的力量源于整个大陆的团结一致，而不是各自为战）；遵循良心的指引，保障全体人民的自由和财产权，最重要的是，保障宗教信仰自由；以及有必要在《宪章》中加以规定的其他事项。制定出《宪章》框架后，应随即解散上述会议，并根据上述《宪章》选举出这个大陆的临时立法人员和行政长官，愿上帝保佑他们幸福平安。阿门！ 将来若是有人被委任从事此项或类似的事业，我愿把德拉戈内蒂这位对政府有着敏锐观察力的政治学家的一段话送给他们，“政治家的艺术，”他说，“在于发掘幸福与自由的精义。那些能够找到一种付出最小代价又最大限度地保障个人幸福的政治家们，值得人们永远爱戴。” [7] 但是，有些人也许会问：北美的国王在哪里？我来告诉你吧，朋友。他在天上统治着我们，并不像残暴的英国国王那样使生灵涂炭。但是，为了显示我们并不缺少尘世的荣耀，让我们庄严地选出一个日子来宣布宪章吧！让我们的宪章遵从上帝的话语，以《圣经》为根据。让我们为宪章加冕，这样整个世界就会知道，我们在某种程度上是支持君主制的：在北美，法律就是国王！在专制政府中，国王就是法律。所以，在自由政府中，成为国王的只能是法律，而不能是任何其他。但是，为了避免今后有任何滥用权威的情形发生，让我们在宪章发布后打碎国王这一称号吧，再将碎片抛散到真正享有权利的人群中。 组建一个属于自己的政权，是我们与生俱来的权利。当一个人认真反思人类事务的不确定性时，他就会明白：在有能力的时候，以一种冷静的、深思熟虑的方式建立起政权，要远比茫然等待某个合适的特定时机更为睿智、安全。如果我们现在不这么做，将来就会有像马赛涅洛[8]那样的人揭竿而起，利用民众的焦虑情绪，聚集起一些亡命之徒和心怀不满的人，承诺他们政权，然后像洪水一般冲走这块大陆的各种自由权利。万一北美统治权再度落入英国人的手里，动荡不安的形势就会吸引冒险家前来铤而走险。在这种情况下，英国人又能给我们什么帮助？早在他们在大洋彼岸得到消息之前，这些灾难性的事件很可能就已经结束了。而我们就会像可怜的布立吞人在征服者压迫下经历的一样，痛苦残喘。你们这些现在反对独立的人啊，你们不知道自己在做些什么。你们让政权的位置空着，却向永久的专制打开大门。 成千上万的人已经意识到，把这个野蛮的、凶恶的势力驱逐出这块大陆，是一件光荣的事情。这股势力已经煽动印第安人和黑人来摧毁我们，这种残忍行为的双重罪恶在于：它既残暴地对待我们，也奸诈地对待他们。 与这些从理智上无法信任、从情感上把我们伤得千疮百孔，让我们厌恶憎恨的人谈论友谊，不仅疯狂，而且愚蠢。每天，我们和他们仅存的这点情谊都在消磨流逝。当这段情谊终结后，是否有理由相信，我们彼此间的友爱反而会增加，或是当我们有十倍于过去的更多更重要的事情要争执的时候，我们反而更容易达成一致？ 你们这些口口声声教导我们要和谐、要融洽的人啊，你能补偿我们失去的光阴吗？你能让妓女找回昔日的纯真吗？如果你不能，那你也无法调解英国与北美之间的关系。现在，最后那丝羁绊已经断开，英国人正在发表各种言论来反对我们。有些伤害，是上苍无法原谅的。如果原谅，这世上就没有天理了。正如一个丈夫无法宽恕强暴妻子的强奸犯一样，这片大陆也无法原谅英国的刽子手。上帝在我们心中种下这些无法磨灭的情感，是出于美好而睿智的意图。它们守护着我们心中上帝的形象，把我们与普通动物区别开来。倘若我们对触及内心的情感无动于衷，社会契约就会解体，公正会从这世上消失，或者仅是形同虚设。倘若我们受到的伤害不能激怒我们，促使我们寻求正义，那么强盗和杀人犯就会经常逃脱罪责。 啊，你们这些热爱人类的人们！你们这些敢于反对暴政和暴君的人们，请站出来！旧世界的每个角落都蔓延着压迫。在全世界，自由到处被追捕，四处逃亡。亚洲和非洲很久之前就已经驱逐了它，欧洲视它为陌生人，英国也对它下了逐客令。啊，请收留这名流亡者，及时为人类准备一处留给自由的避难所！ [1] 1775年4月19日，美洲殖民地民兵和英国军队在弗吉尼亚州莱克星顿镇发生武装冲突，史称“莱克星顿的枪声”，标志着美国独立战争的开始。 [2] 1756—1763年，英国与法国之间的七年战争。 [3] 1756—1763年，英法之间的七年战争，英国胜。 [4]腓特烈·诺斯（Frederick North），又称诺斯勋爵， 1770至1782年任英国首相。作者写作此文的时候，诺斯在英国财政部任职，支持向美洲课以重税。 [5] 指1775年6月17日波士顿附近的班克山战役，以美军胜利告终。 [6] 指莱克星顿的枪声。 [7] 德拉戈内蒂《论德行与报酬》。 [8] 托马斯·阿涅洛，又名马赛涅洛，是那不勒斯的一名渔夫。当时，那不勒斯受西班牙人的统治，他在公共集市上号召同胞起义，反抗西班牙人的压迫，起义当天他便成为国王。 论北美目前的能力，以及其他一些想法 无论是在英国或北美，我遇到的每个人都坦诚表示北美大陆从英国独立是迟早的事。但是，在描述北美大陆独立的成熟时机或合适时机的时候，我们却比其他任何时候都更少发表思虑周全的方案。 既然所有人都同意独立，只是在时间方面有所分歧，那么，为了避免错误，让我们考察一下当前的状况，并在可能的情况下，努力找到最合适的独立时机。但是，我们并不需要走得太远，探究很快便会结束，因为这个时机已经到来了。目前的总体形势，所有事情都振奋人心地联系在一起，都证明了这一点。 我们最大的优势并不在于人数，而在于我们团结一致。既是这样，我们现在的人数也足以击退全世界。眼下，北美大陆拥有全世界规模最庞大的、训练有素的武装部队，而且正处于这样的阶段：任何单独一个殖民地都无法独立自保，但一旦所有殖民地联合起来，便能所向无敌。我们的武装力量若是比现在更强大些，或是更弱些，都达不到这样的效果。我们拥有足够强大的陆军，至于海军方面，我们必须清醒地看到：只要英国仍控制着北美大陆，它就绝不会允许北美建立起一支武装舰队。因此，哪怕再过一百年，我们在这方面也不会比现在有所进展。事实上，到时候只会比现在更糟，因为这块大陆上的木材在逐年变少，而剩下的木材位置偏远，难以采伐。 一旦北美大陆上人口拥挤，它现在所遭受的苦难便会变得难以忍受。我们拥有的港口城市越多，需要保卫、可能失去的城市也就越多。我们现在的人数恰好符合我们的需求，没有人闲散无事可干。贸易的减少使更多人加入军队，而军队的需求又会促进新贸易活动的产生。 我们没有任何外债。因独立战争而欠下的任何债务，都将成为我们美德的光荣纪念。只要我们能给后代留下一个固定的政府形式、一个独立的政权，付出任何代价都是值得的。但是，如果花费了大量金钱，却只是废除了一些恶法、推翻了当今内阁，这不但不值得，对我们的后代也未免太过残忍。因为这给他们留下了大量工作，还在他们肩膀压上沉重的债务，从中却得不到任何好处。任何正直的人都不会有这样的想法，只有思维狭隘的人和无是生非的政客才会这样做。 倘若我们的事业能得以成功，由此所可能产生的债务都是不值一提的。任何国家都可能产生债务，国家债务就是国债，当它没有利息的时候，绝不是一个沉重的负担。英国所负担的国债超过一亿四千万英镑，仅每年支付的利息就超过四百万英镑。正因为有这样的负债，它才建立起一支强大的海军。美洲大陆没有负债，也就没有海军。但是，只要有英国国债的二十分之一，我们就能建立起一支与英国同样强大的海军舰队。眼下，英国海军的价值不超过三百五十万英镑。 在这本小册子的第一版和第二版，并没有下列的计算数字。现在，我将以下计算列出，用以证明上述对海军价值的估算是有充分根据的。[1] 根据海军部长伯切特先生的计算，建造各种等级的舰船，并装备桅杆、帆桁、帆和索具，再加上相当于水手和船匠八个月的口粮，总造价分别为： 一艘装有100门火炮的舰船 35,553镑 一艘装有90门火炮的舰船 29,886镑 一艘装有80门火炮的舰船 23,638镑 一艘装有70门火炮的舰船 17,795镑 一艘装有60门火炮的舰船 14,197镑 一艘装有50门火炮的舰船 10,606镑 一艘装有40门火炮的舰船 7558镑 一艘装有30门火炮的舰船 5846镑 一艘装有20门火炮的舰船 3710镑 由此，我们很容易计算出整支英国海军舰队的价值或成本，因为在1757年，英国海军的鼎盛时期，它拥有以下舰船和枪炮： 世界上再没有哪个国家像北美一样处于如此优越的位置，具有筹建舰队的良好内部条件。北美大陆天然出产柏油、木材、铁和绳索，无需向国外采购。荷兰人将他们的军舰出租给西班牙人和葡萄牙人，并由此获得巨大利润，但他们却需要进口大部分原材料。我们应当把建造舰队视为一个商业项目，因为在这方面我们具有天然优势，这将是我们回报率最高的投资。等建成以后，这支海军舰队的价值将高于它的成本。它也会成为国家政策中的一个妙处所在，将商业与国防很好地统一起来。因此，让我们筹建一支海军吧！如果我们不需要它，到时候也能卖掉，用真金白银来代替我们的纸币。 关于舰队的人员配备问题，人们通常陷入严重的误区：并不需要让船上四分之一的人都做水手。那艘令人惧怕的武装民船“死亡船长”号，曾在上次战争中经历过最激烈的海上对抗，但船上的水手却不足二十人，虽然整艘船的编制高达二百多人。只需要几个干练的、善于交流的水手，就能很快教会许多陆上生活的人从事船上的普通工作。因此，既然现在我们的木材储备丰富，渔业遭到禁止，而水手和造船木工们都陷于失业，这正是开创海上事业的最佳良机。四十年前，我们曾在新英格兰建造过一些装有七十到八十门火炮的军舰，为什么现在不这样做呢？造船业是美洲大陆最值得骄傲的行业，总有一天它会在这个领域超越世界各国。东方的伟大帝国大多地处内陆，因此不可能与北美抗衡。非洲仍处于蛮荒状态。欧洲列国要么没有这么绵长的海岸线，要么缺乏如此充足的原料供应。大自然对人类的赐予，往往在某一方面慷慨，在另一方面吝惜，然而对北美，它却在两方面都慷慨大方。幅员广阔的俄罗斯几乎没有出海的道路，因此它广袤无垠的森林、它的柏油、铁和绳索就只能作为出售的商品。 从安全方面考虑，难道我们不需要一支舰队吗？我们已经不是六十年前无足轻重的贫民了。那时，我们也许可以把财产随意放在街头或田野里，夜不闭户，不上锁，也能睡得安稳。现在，情况已经发生变化。随着财产的增加，我们的防卫手段也应该有所增强。一年前，一个普通海盗就能沿特拉华河而上，肆意向费城居民勒索财物，同样的情况也可能发生在其他城市。不但如此，任何胆大包天的家伙都能带着一艘十四或十六门炮的双桅横帆船洗劫整个美洲大陆，抢走五六十万英镑。这些都值得我们注意，并也指出海防的必要性。 有些人也许会说，等我们同英国谈和后，它就会保护我们。难道我们真的如此愚蠢，竟然相信英国会为了保护我们，而在我们的港湾内驻扎军舰？常识告诉我们，一个曾企图征服我们的国家是所有国家中最不适合保护我们的。它会打着友谊的旗号来实行征服，而我们，在经过长期英勇抵抗后，却被欺骗，成为奴隶。倘若我们不允许英国舰队驶入港口，那么，我要问，它又该怎样保护我们呢？一支驻扎在三四千英里之外的舰队对我们并没有多大用处，在紧急情况下，更是毫无用处。因此，既然我们今后必须保护自己，为什么不自己动手？为什么要仰仗别人呢？ 英国的军舰清单长得惊人，但是，其中可以使用的舰船在任何时候都不到十分之一，还有许多舰船根本不存在；只要船舰还剩下哪怕一块甲板，就会堂而皇之地保留在舰队名单上。即使在这些可以使用的船舰中，能同时停泊在某个军港待命的，也只有不到五分之一。东印度群岛、西印度群岛、地中海各国、非洲，以及英国势力遍及的世界其他地区，都对英国海军提出巨大要求。出于偏见和疏忽，我们对英国海军存在一种错误观念，觉得我们好像要同时与整支英国海军对抗，也因此错误认定我们必须有一支同样强大的海军；而这种想法又不能马上得以实现，因此一些伪装后的托利党人趁机加以利用，企图从一开始就打消我们组建海军的念头。这种观念实在是谬之千里，事实上，只要北美拥有英国海军二十分之一的武装力量，我们便具有压倒性的优势。这是因为，既然我们没有且不主张拥有任何海外领土，我们的全部的海军就可以用在自己的海岸线上。从长远来看，相对于要远航三四千英里来攻击我们，然后还得航行同样距离才能补充人员和物资的英国舰队而言，我们拥有双倍优势。尽管英国用舰队截断了我们与欧洲的贸易往来，但我们同样也能用舰队截断他们与西印度群岛的贸易往来，后者临近美洲大陆，完全在我们的掌控之下。 如果认为没必要维系一支常备海军的话，我们也可以采取一些措施，在和平时期维持海军力量。假如给商人们一些津贴，让他们建造一些装有二十门、三十门、四十门或五十门火炮的舰船并作为商船使用（津贴数额按商人的载货容积损失比照计算），只要建造五十到六十艘这样的武装商船，再加上一些日常执勤的警备船，就是一支力量充足的海军了。采用这种做法，我们就不至于像英国一样，在和平时期让舰队停泊在港口等着腐朽损坏，英国人民对此诟病颇多。将商业贸易与国防力量结合在一起，是个很好的政策。一旦我们的武力与财富彼此联手，我们就无须惧怕外来的敌人。 不管是哪种国防用品需要的原材料，我们都储备充裕。这里苎麻繁茂，因此不缺乏索具。这里的铁质比其他国家更好，我们的轻型武器能与任何其他地区相媲美。我们有能力随意制造大炮，硝石和火药也每天都在生产。我们的知识与日俱进，意志坚定，是我们与生俱来的品质，勇气也从未离我们而去。那么，我们还需要些什么？我们为什么还犹豫不决呢？我们从英国那里能得到的只有毁灭，再没有其他东西。倘若再次承认英国对北美的统治权，这片土地就不再适合生存。猜忌会不断涌现，暴动会持续发生，还有谁会挺身而出来平息这一切？还有谁会冒着生命危险，只为迫使他的同胞服从外国的统治？宾夕法尼亚州与康涅狄克州之间关于一些未开垦土地的争执，与英国政府丝毫没有关系，这充分证明，只有北美自己的政权才能管理好北美的事务。 足以证明眼下是独立的最佳时机的另一个理由是，我们的人数越少，还没被占据的土地就越少。只要这些土地不被英国国王胡乱送给他那些鄙陋的仆从们，以后我们不但能用它们来偿还现在的债务，还能用来维持政府的日常开支——全世界再没有哪个国家拥有这样的优势。 这种各殖民地联合起来的新生状态，并不像许多人所说的那样不利于独立，反而是有利于独立的。我们的人口数量正合适，如果人数更多的话，可能就没有现在这么团结。值得注意的是，一个国家的人口数量越多，军队数量反而越少。古人的军队数量远远超出今人，理由很简单，因为人口增长促进了商业贸易的发展，人们从而过分专注于贸易，而忽略了其他。商业的发展降低了人们的士气，无论是爱国主义精神，还是在国防上。历史一再告诫我们，一个国家最英勇的成就往往产生于建国初期。随着商业贸易的发展，英国丧失了它的士气。伦敦城尽管人口众多，却像懦夫一样对各种持续的侮辱，逆来顺受。一个人可失去的东西越多，他就越是不敢冒险。富人们往往沦为恐惧的奴隶，像条哈巴狗一样在宫廷王权面前摇尾乞怜。 无论对国家或个人来说，青年时代都是养成良好习惯的黄金时期。要是五十年后还想在北美大陆组建统一的政府，这即使不是不可能，也是极为困难的。贸易和人口的增加引起各种复杂的利害关系，并导致混乱。殖民地之间会产生冲突，由于羽翼渐丰，各殖民地还会轻蔑彼此之间的善意帮助。傲慢者和愚蠢者会为一点点成就而沾沾自喜，但有识之士却会痛悔没能及早结成联盟。因此，现在就是组建联盟的最佳时机。在幼年时形成的亲密情谊，在共患难中缔结的真挚友谊，是最深远也最持久的感情。我们当前的殖民地联盟就带有这两种鲜明的特征：我们很年轻，正处在苦难中，但我们团结一致，共同经历了苦难的考验，为后人开创了一段值得怀念的光辉时代。 眼前这个时期是一个特殊的时期，这样的时期对每个国家来说都只有一次，即组建自身政权的时期。绝大多数国家错过了这个机会，只能被迫接受征服者制定的法律，而不是自己制定法律。他们先有了一个国王，然后才建立起某种形式的政府。然而正确的顺序是，首先应该制定宪法，然后选出代表来执行章程。让我们从其他国家的错误中吸取教训吧，抓住眼前的机会，按照正确的顺序来组建政府！ 威廉一世征服英国后，用武力强迫英国人接受了他制定的法律。除非我们一致赞成应该在北美大陆组建一个合法、权威的政府，否则，我们也将同样面临被某个幸运的恶棍强占统治权的危险。到那时，我们的自由何在？我们的财产又该如何保护？ 至于宗教，我认为保护一切真诚地坦白自己宗教信仰的人，是所有政府不可推卸的责任。除此之外，政府别无其他权力干涉宗教自由。让我们抛弃狭隘的思想、自私的原则吧，只有心胸狭隘的人才会死抓着它们不放。一旦人们这样做了，便能摆脱心中的恐惧。猜忌总是伴随着偏执的思想，并且会毒害所有美好的社会。就我个人而言，我全心全意地、真诚地相信，人们怀着各种各样不同的信仰，这是万能上帝的旨意，它为我们基督教徒展示善意提供了更广阔的空间。倘若我们的思维方式趋同，那么，我们的宗教倾向就缺乏检验的依据。根据这条自由的原则，我认为人们所信仰的不同教派就像是一个大家庭里的众多孩子，只是名字不同罢了。 在本书的前面，我曾对如何制定《大陆宪章》提供了一些看法（我只想抛砖引玉地提些意见，而不是方案）。在此，我想再度提起这个话题。我认为，《大陆宪章》应该是一份对神圣义务的盟约，每个殖民地都参与在内，承诺维护彼此间的权利，无论是宗教、个人自由或财产方面，牢固可靠的契约和彼此间公平合理的对待才能使友谊天长地久。 前面我还曾提到建立广泛和平等的代表制度的必要性，再没有什么政治事务比它更值得我们关注。选民的人数太少，或是代表的人数太少，都是很危险的。但使倘若代表的人数不但少，而且分布不平均，这种危险便会递增。为了证明这一点，我想举下面这个例子：当宾夕法尼亚州议会讨论大陆联盟的议案时，当时只有二十八名议员在场。巴克斯郡的全部八名议员一致投票反对，查斯特郡的全部七名议员也紧随其后，整个州就这样被区区两个郡所操控了，而这样的危险始终存在。这是该议会在上届会议中所发生的事。这种对全州代表施加不当影响的行为，应当敦促全体人民注意，提醒他们是如何将权力交付出去的。有人整理出议员们的一整套议政规则，无论是从合理性还是可操作性上看，这套规则是连小学生都会感到受侮辱的。但是，经过少数人——极少数人私下讨论并通过后，这套规则被提交到议会，然后以整个殖民地的名义获得通过。倘若整个殖民地的人民知道议会在讨论通过一些必要公共措施时存有什么恶意，他们会毫不犹豫地认为这些议员们辜负了他们的信任。 在紧急情况下，会产生许多权宜之计，如果继续采用，就会转变为对人民的压迫——便利的做法不等于正确的做法。当北美大陆面临灾难，需要共同商议讨论时，并没有比从几个州议会中任命一些议员来商讨更简便、更合适的方法，这些议员们迄今为止表现出的智慧也使这块大陆免遭灭顶之灾。那么，既然我们必须要有一个大陆会议，每个期待良好秩序的人都应该承认：选择大陆会议代表的方式是值得思索的。在此，我要向那些研究人类的人们提出一个问题：让同一群人具有代议权和选举权，这样的权力是否太大了？当我们为子孙后代做打算的时候，我们要记住：美德是不能遗传的。 我们经常能从敌人那里得到有益的箴言，他们的错误也时常让我们惊觉。康沃尔先生（英国财政委员之一）对纽约州议会的请愿书嗤之以鼻，因为那个议会，他说，总共只有二十六名议员。在他看来，这么微不足道的人数，根本无法用来代表全体人民。我们感谢他这种无意间的诚实。[2] 总之，不管对有些人来说这种观念有多离奇，或是他们有多不愿意这么想，这些都不重要。我们可以举出一些强有力的且显著的理由，来证明并没有其他方法，能比公开坚决地宣布独立更顺利地解决我们的问题。 第一，按照国际惯例，当两个国家交战时，不陷入争端的第三方势力通常会介入调停，并开启和谈。但是，只要北美大陆仍自称为大不列颠帝国的臣民，就不会有任何第三方势力来介入调解，无论它多么倾向于这么做。因此，如果不宣布独立，我们很可能会与英国永远争执下去。 第二，如果我们寻求帮助的目的仅仅是为了修补与英国之间的裂痕，并加强英国与美洲大陆之间的联系，我们就没有理由指望法国或西班牙会提供任何帮助，因为帮助我们的后果只会对他们不利。 第三，如果我们自称为大英帝国的子民，那么，在其他国家眼里，我们无异于“反叛者”。臣民拿起武器反抗当权者，这样的先例会给他们本国的和平造成威胁。诚然，我们可以解释这个矛盾，但要把臣服和抵抗巧妙地联系在一起，这样的说辞过于精妙，超出普通人的理解能力。 第四，如果我们发表一项声明，陈述我们所遭受的苦难，列举我们曾尝试过但不奏效的和平手段，递交给各国宫廷；并同时宣布，由于无法继续在残酷的英国王室统治下幸福或安全地生活，我们被迫与英国断绝所有联系，同时向各国政府表明我们对他们的和平态度，以及与他们开展贸易往来的愿望：对北美大陆来说，这样一份外交备忘录远比运上满满一船请愿书去英国能产生更好的效果。 眼下，作为英国的臣民，其他国家既不能接纳我们，也不会倾听我们的声音。各个国家的惯例都对我们不利，而且这种情况会持续下去，直到我们通过独立获得与他们同等的国际地位。 乍看起来，这些举措可能陌生而困难，但是，正如我们此前所经历过的其他步骤一样，一段时间后，它们就会变得熟悉而亲切。在此之前，美洲大陆会觉得自己像一个有拖延症的人，总是把某件不愉快的事情一天天拖下去，心里明明知道这件事必须做，却又不愿动手去做，总希望它已经得到解决，就这样一直被“必须做这件事”的念头纠缠困扰——直到我们宣布独立！ [1] 参见作者恩蒂克著《海军史》绪论，第56页。 [2]读者如愿充分理解广泛和平等的代议制对于一个州来说是何等重要，应阅读波格著《政治研究》一书。 附 记 在这本小册子的第一版出版后，事实上，就在它面世当天, 英国国王在议会上的演说就传到了这个城市（费城）。如果说冥冥中有神祇掌控着这部作品的诞生，那么，它再也挑不出更恰到好处的时机或更紧要的关头来发表。英国国王的冷血无情，凸显出我们坚定信念的必要性。只有从报复行动中，人们才能看清对方的嘴脸。英国国王的演说不但没有吓倒任何人，反而为坚定的独立原则铺平了道路。 虚与委蛇，或是沉默不语，无论基于何种动机，只要它们表现出对卑劣或邪恶行为的纵容，就是一种有害的倾向。如果我们同意这条准则，那么自然就能得出结论：英国国王的演说，作为英国所犯下暴行的一部分，理应受到国会和人民的普遍斥责。然而，由于一个国家的内部安定在很大程度上依赖于被称为“国民素养”的质朴程度，往往最好对某些事情报以沉默的鄙夷，而不是试图采取某种表达憎恶的新手段，因为后者有可能给我们的和平与安宁带来威胁。也许正因为这个谨慎微妙的原因，英国国王的演说在此之前并没有受到公开谴责。这次演说，倘若它还能被称为“演说”的话，根本毫无内容，只是对事实真相、公共福祉和人类存在的一次肆无忌惮的蓄意诋毁，是将人类尊严置于暴君脚下的冠冕堂皇的践踏。但是，这种对人性的蔑杀，却是身为国王的一项特权和某种必然结果。造化不知道这些国王，国王们也不知道天性。尽管这些国王是我们普通人所创造出来的，但他们并不知道我们，而且还成为我们这些普通人的神。英国国王的这次演说至少有一个好处，那就是，它并不打算欺骗谁。我们也无法被它欺骗，即使我们愿意。这篇演说白纸黑字地写满残忍与暴政，丝毫没有留给我们困惑的余地；每一字每一句都让我们知道，即使是那些在树林间以打猎为生、衣不蔽体的野蛮印第安人，都比不上英国国王残忍。 约翰·达林普尔爵士曾写过一篇充满悲鸣的虚伪作品，大言不惭地题为《英国人民致北美居民书》。他徒劳地认为，如果北美人民知道当今英国国王的真实品格（他这么做是很不明智的），便会被国王的华丽气势和对国王的描述所吓倒。“如果，”这位作者说，“你想赞美本届内阁（指撤销《印花税法案》的罗金哈姆伯爵内阁），对此我们不会有所抱怨。但是，如果你在赞美内阁的同时没有称颂那位君王，这是非常不公平的。因为正是有了他的许可，内阁才能被允许做任何事情。”这是极端的保皇主义！这是毫不掩饰的盲目崇拜！任何一个能无动于衷地听从并接受这种说教的人，已经放弃了对理性的追求，成为人类秩序的叛徒。这样的人不但放弃了人类的尊严，而且已经堕落到自陷于动物的地步，只能像一条毛虫一样卑贱地在世上爬行。 然而，英国国王曾说过或做过什么，现在都已经不重要了。他恶毒地破坏了所有道德和人性的义务，将天性和良知践踏在脚下。他一贯的傲慢和残忍本性，为自己招来了普遍的憎恨。现在，北美大陆自力更生的时刻到来了！它已经拥有了一个年轻的大家庭，它更应该做的是去照顾这个家庭，而不是大方地拿出财物，去支持一个给人类和基督徒蒙羞的政权。你们，这些负责守护国家道德准则的人，无论你们是出自哪个宗派或教派，还有你们这些负责守护公共自由的人，如果你们想保全这片土地，使它不受欧洲腐败势力的沾染，你们在内心必定悄悄祈祷着独立。但是，就让这些道德因素留给每个人去独自思索吧，我将主要在以下几个方面表达自己的观点。 首先，脱离英国独立，符合北美大陆的利益。 其次，哪种方案更为简单可行，和解或是独立？这里再附加一些补充意见。 为了论证第一点，如果我觉得有必要，我可以举出这块大陆上最能干、最有经验的一些人的观点。他们在这个问题上的态度，尚未被公众所熟知。事实上，这个观点是不证自明的：因为没有任何一个国家在依赖于外国势力、贸易受限、立法权被钳制的情况下，还能跻身于世界强国之列。北美大陆还不知道富足为何物，尽管它所取得的进步在其他国家的历史上是无可匹敌的，它仍处在幼年时代。等它将立法权真正掌握在自己手中的时候（它也应该这么做），它所能获得的成就和现在会有天壤之别。眼下，英国正在洋洋得意地垂涎于那种即使它得到后，也毫无好处的东西，而这块大陆则在一件事关自身存亡的事情上犹豫不决。能为英国带来利益的，是商业贸易，而不是对北美大陆的征服。如果各国之间像法国与西班牙一样彼此独立，这种利益将在很大程度上得到延续。因为就许多商品来说，任何一方都无法找到更好的市场。北美大陆要脱离英国或任何其他国家而获得独立，这是目前最主要的也是唯一值得争论的问题。这个问题就像其他所有必然被发现的真理一样，将变得日益清晰而坚定。 这是因为，首先，独立迟早是要到来的，只是时间早晚的问题。 其次，这件事拖得越久，就越难以实现。 我时常在公众或私下场合，饶有趣味地倾听着别人的谈话，默默留意着那些说话不经思考的人们似是而非的谬论。在所有这些谬论当中，下面的这种观点似乎最为普遍，即倘若与英国的决裂发生在四五十年后，而不是现在，北美大陆将更有能力摆脱对英国的隶属关系。对此，我的回答是：我们当前的军事力量来源于上次战争中所获得的经验，四五十年后，这种力量便会完全衰竭，到那时，这块大陆不会剩下一位将军，甚至一位普通军官，我们和我们的继任者，将像古代印第安人一样对军事一无所知。如果仔细留意，单是这点便能无可置疑地证明：眼下是独立的最佳时机。论证的过程是：在上次战争刚结束时，我们积攒了经验，但缺乏各种储备；四五十年后，我们的战争储备丰富，却又丧失了经验。因此，独立的最佳时机，必然落在这两个极端中的某一点上，当我们仍拥有丰富的经验，又积累了一定的储备。而这个最佳时点，就是现在。 请读者们原谅我的离题，因为上面的论述并不完全落入我所阐述的第一点内容里。现在，我将回到原先的主题，阐述下列主张，即： 倘若我们与英国之间的裂痕能得到修补，而英国仍旧保留对北美的管理权与统治权（随着形势的发展，北美大陆正在完全抛弃这个主张），我们无疑是在剥夺自己偿还现有债务或未来可能债务的能力。随着加拿大以每一百英亩五英镑的价格不正当地拓展它的疆域，某些省份被秘密剥夺的腹地价值已经高达两千五百万宾夕法尼亚元。免役税以每英亩一便士计，也已经达到每年两百万宾夕法尼亚元。 正是通过出售这些土地，我们才能在不给任何人增添负担的情况下偿还债务，而预留下来的免役税也能减轻，并最终完全支付政府每年所需要的运转成本。至于债务要偿还多少年，这并不重要，只要我们所出售的土地被用来偿债就行。为了执行这项工作，当前的大陆会议可以暂时担任北美大陆的受托人。 现在，我将开始讨论第二点，即：哪一种方案更为简单可行，是和解抑或是独立？以及一些补充意见。 那些以自然规律为依据的人不会被轻易驳倒。基于这一点，我的大体回答是：独立是一条简单的直线，是我们自身能够掌控的；和解却是一件无比繁琐复杂的事情，而且必然会被一个背信弃义反复无常的宫廷王室横加干涉。 对于每个有反思能力的人来说，北美大陆的现状令人担忧：没有法律，没有政府，除了别人施舍的权力以外，再没有任何形式的权力类型。北美现在是由空前一致的群体情感联系起来的，但是，这种情感容易发生变化，而且每个秘密敌人都在试图瓦解它。我们目前的状态是：有立法机构，却没有法律；有智慧，却没有具体方案；有政权，却没有名称。而最让人震惊的是，我们拥有完美的独立条件，却还指望着依赖英国。这种情形是毫无先例的，此前从未有过这样的事情发生，谁能知道未来会发生什么？在眼下这个毫无保障的体制中，没有谁的财产是安全的。大多数人的想法随意而散漫，看不到明确的目标，只能追逐幻想或听信流言。没有什么行为是犯罪，也没有什么事情会被视为叛国，因此，每个人都觉得自己拥有为所欲为的自由。倘若保皇党人知道他们的所作所为会使他们在法律面前丧失性命，他们就不敢这样挑衅般地聚集在一起。在战争中被俘虏的英国士兵和手持武器被捕获的北美居民是不同的，前者是囚犯，后者（对英国来说）是叛国徒。前者失去的是自由，后者丢的是脑袋。 尽管我们拥有智慧，但在某些行动中仍存在明显的软弱之处，助长了意见的分歧。整个大陆过于松散，导致行动力低下。而且，如果某件事没能及时完成，再做其他任何事情，都来不及了，到那时，我们就将陷入一种既无法和解也无法独立的尴尬处境。英国国王和他低贱的走狗们又玩起了分裂北美大陆的老把戏，在我们当中，也不乏忙着散布流言的搬弄是非者。几个月前，在纽约两家报纸以及另外两家报纸上发表的那封巧言令色的、惺惺作态的信，证明了有些人既缺乏判断力，也没有诚实的品格。 躲在犄角旮旯里高谈着和解，是很容易的。但是，这些人是否认真思考过，这项工作有多困难，一旦美洲大陆因此分裂，它的处境又会有多危险？他们是否考虑过所有处在不同情况和环境下的人们的态度，而不是只站在自己的角度？他们是否设身处地地为那些已经一无所有的受害者、为那些为了保卫自己的祖国放弃一切的士兵们着想过？如果他们思虑不周的中庸态度只符合他们自身的情况，而没有考虑到其他人的处境，那么，最终结果将向他们表明：“他们是擅自决定。” 有些人说，让我们退回到1763年[1]的情况吧。对此我的回答是：英国现在没有能力满足这个请求，它也不想这么做。但是，倘若它确实有能力也满足了这条请求，那么，我要合情合理地问一句：该用什么方法让这个腐败的、背信弃义的宫廷王室履行自己的承诺？下一届国会，啧，就算是现在这届国会，都有可能在以后收回它的承诺，借口说这个义务是通过暴力强加给他们的，或者他们没有考虑充分。如果出现这种情况，我们有什么办法求得是非曲直吗？我们没法诉诸法律，因为大炮才是国王们的律师，决定诉讼结果的是武力，而不是正义。倘若我们真想回到1763年的状态，仅仅恢复当时的法律是不够的，还要把我们的生活状态恢复到原先的程度：要修补或是重建那些被烧毁的、被破坏的城镇，要补偿我们损失的私人财产，要偿清我们的公共债务（国防债务）。否则，我们的状态只会比那个被羡慕的年代更糟糕无数倍。英国倘若能在一年前满足这条请求，必定能赢得这片大陆的人心，但是，现在已经太迟了，机会已经逝去。 此外，倘若我们诉诸武力，只是为了废除一部财政法案， 不仅缺乏《圣经》上的依据，也是违背人性情理的，正如用武力迫使人们顺服一样。在这两种情形中，都不应当为了达到目的而不择手段。人类生命的价值太过宝贵，不应该被牺牲在这些琐事上。只有当别人对我们付诸暴力，威胁到我们的人身安全，当他们用武力损坏我们的财产，用烧杀抢掠侵犯我们的家园，才值得我们拿起武器反抗。一旦这样的情形发生，当武装反抗成为必然，所有对英国的臣服行为就必须停止。北美大陆的独立，从向英国打响第一枪时就拉开序幕。这条分水岭是前后连贯的一条线，它并不是随意划出的，也不是能靠野心被延长的；它是由一连串的事件所导致的结果，而各殖民地并不是这些事件的肇事者。 我想用以下这些适时的、善意的提示来结束我的评论。我们应该意识到，只有三种实现独立的可能途径。这三者中的其中一种，以后将成为北美大陆的最终命运。这三种方法是：通过大陆会议的人民立法，通过军事斗争，或是通过平民暴动。我们的军队未必总是由居民组成，大部分士兵也未必就是通情达理的人。正如我曾说过的那样，德行是无法遗传的，它也不会永久存在。倘若美洲大陆的独立是通过上述第一种途径实现的，在我们面前就会有无数的机会和来自各方面的支持，来组建起这世上最高尚、最纯洁的政体，我们有能力重建这个世界。像眼下这样的机会，自诺亚方舟的时代起，从未有过。在我们手中，决定着一个新世界的诞生。数量接近整个欧洲人口的北美人民，将在接下来的几个月要发生的事件中获得他们的自由。深思之下，令人震惊——从这个角度来看，与整个世界的伟大事业相比，少数怯懦者或利益攸关者吹毛求疵的苛责显得多么无足轻重、多么滑稽可笑啊！ 如果我们贻误了当前最有利、最合适的时机，以后只能采取其他途径实现独立，那么，必须承担后果的就是我们自己，以及那些不假思索地习惯性反对别人主张的思维狭隘、心怀偏见的人。有许多支持独立的理由，但这些理由应该由人们独自细想明白，而不是由别人公开告诉他们。我们现在无须争执究竟是否应该独立，而是应该千方百计地以一种坚定的、可靠的、有尊严的方式去实现它，并对还未着手进行而感到不安。每一天，时间的流逝都在提醒着我们独立的必要性。在所有人当中，保皇党人（倘若我们中间还有这种人的话）应该比其他人更热切盼望实现独立，因为，初期委员会[2]的设立从广泛的公众憎恶中保护了他们，而一个合理且妥善建立起来的政权形式，会成为继续保护他们安全的唯一手段。因此，假使他们的德行还不配使他们成为独立党人，他们也应该足够精明，祈祷独立。 总之，独立是维系和团结我们的唯一纽带。我们的眼睛应该紧紧盯着目标，我们的耳朵应该不再轻信一个奸诈、残暴的敌人所提出的阴谋诡计。到那时，我们应该站在合适的立场上与英国对话。我们有理由相信，与向它统治下的“造反的臣民”退让和解相比，与北美大陆各州进行和平谈判能更好地维护英国王室的尊严。正是我们的犹豫不决，助长了它征服北美大陆的欲念。正是我们的迟疑不前，延长了战争时间。我们中断了商业贸易，来弥补所遭受的屈辱，但这样做是毫无好处的。现在，让我们试试别的做法吧，通过独立来解决这些问题，然后开放贸易。英国的商人和通情达理的人们会支持我们的做法，因为和平环境中的贸易往来总胜过战争环境下的贸易封锁。而且，倘若英国不接受我们的提议，我们也可以同其他国家开展贸易往来。 对这个问题，我就谈到这里。 鉴于目前尚未有人对这本小册子的前两个版本中提出的独立主张进行反驳，这便从反面证明：要么，这个主张无从驳起，要么，支持这个主张的人为数众多，是驳不倒的。因此，与其带着怀疑或猜忌的眼神互相瞪视，还不如让我们每个人都向身边的邻居伸出真诚的友谊之手，共同联手画一条界限，用遗忘来埋葬所有曾经的分歧。让“独立党人”和“保皇党人”的名称从此消亡，使我们今后不再听到类似的名称，两耳所及之处，只能听到：一个良好的公民、一个坦率而坚定的朋友，一个拥护人权、拥护自由和独立的北美联邦的高尚的支持者！ 致被称为贵格会教徒的人民宗教社团代表，或是他们当中参与出版最近的一本题为《贵格会教友的历代箴言与教义新编，关于国王和政府，以及在北美各地发生的骚乱，致广大人民书》的小册子的人士。 这篇文章的作者，是极少数从未讥笑嘲弄过任何宗教也从不对任何教派吹毛求疵的人之一。在宗教方面，所有人都应该向上帝负责，而不是向其他人负责。因此，这篇文章并不视你们为宗教团体，而是视你们为政治团体，因为你们涉足了一个贵派所宣称的平和安宁的教义限制你们涉足的领域。 鉴于你们在未得到适当授权的情况下自称代表了所有贵格会教徒，为了与你们平等对话，本书作者有必要自命为代表所有尽管同意你们的教义原则本身却反对你们用这些见证来支持它们的人。他选择了这个独特的立场，是为了让你们看到一种在你们自己身上所看不到的假定品格。事实上，无论是本书作者，或是你们，都没有资格声称自己有“政治代表性”。 当人们脱离正确轨道的时候，他们跌跌撞撞乃至跌倒也就不足为奇。从你们编写见证的方式中就能明显看出，（作为一个宗教团体）政治并不是你们熟悉的领域。尽管你们也许会认为这本书编得很不错，但事实上，它只是将一些好的坏的例子胡乱堆砌在一起，然后从中得出一个不自然的、不公正的结论。 我们认为前两页（这本小册子总共也不过4页）写得很不错，也希望你们的表现能像这些原则一样文明有礼。对和平的热爱与期盼并不是贵格会教友所特有的，也是所有人发自内心的愿望。在这一点上，作为为建立属于自己的独立政权而奋斗的人们，我们比所有其他人都更热切盼望和平。我们渴望得到永久和平！我们已经厌倦了与英国无休止的争辩，除了最终脱离英国独立之外，再没有办法能真正结束这一切。我们的行动连贯一致，为了得到永久的、不受干扰的和平，就必须忍受眼下的苦难和重负。我们努力着，也将坚定地继续努力，去斩断与英国之间的联系。正是这种联系，使我们的土地渗满了血液；也正是这种联系，只要它的名义仍在，就会成为两个国家未来苦难的致命根源。 我们既不是为复仇而战，也不是为征服而战；既不是出于骄傲，也不是出于情绪。我们并不想率领军舰和军队在世界上耀武扬威，也不想到处侵吞掠夺，使生灵涂炭。我们是在自家的葡萄藤下被攻击，在自家的房屋中、在家乡的土地上，遭受暴力！在我们眼里，这些敌人是拦路抢劫的盗徒、打家劫舍的抢匪。我们在法律上得不到保护，只能被迫用军事力量惩罚他们。在同样的情况下，我们使用刀剑，而你们过去还用过绞索。对这片大陆每个角落里被欺辱被践踏的人，我们都感同身受。这种内心的柔软，也许你们还没能感受到。但是，在你们编写箴言时别搞错了——这是你们自身的毛病，别把它作为你们所做见证的原因或理由。别把灵魂的冷酷无情看成宗教，也别把偏执顽固，当成基督徒的天性！ 哦，你们这些对自身教义都不懂装懂的半吊子牧师！如果诉诸武力是罪恶的，那么，首先挑起战争的人更加罪孽深重，因为蓄意攻击和被迫自卫之间有着本质的不同。因此，倘若你们真的是在发自内心地宣扬信念，而不仅仅是把政治当成一个新的业余爱好，那就说服这个世界吧，向我们的敌人宣讲你们的主张——因为他们手上也正拿着武器！请用行动证明你们的诚意，在圣·詹姆斯发表这本小册子，把它送给波士顿的英军统帅们、向那些像海盗一样侵掠我们海岸线的英军海军司令和船长们、所有那些在你们宣誓效忠的英国国王授命下屠戮百姓的刽子手们！倘若你们有巴克莱[3]那般诚实的灵魂，你们就该向你们的国王忏悔。你们应该告诉那个身份高贵的恶棍他所犯下的罪，警告他将受到的永恒毁灭。你们不该一味地片面攻击这些被侮辱与被损害的人，而应该像那些信念坚定的牧师一样，振臂高呼，一视同仁！不要说你们受到了迫害，也别说我们在蓄意谴责你们，你们是在自食其果。让所有人都看到：我们指责你们的言行，并不是因为你们是贵格会教徒，而恰恰因为你们根本不是却谎称是贵格会教徒！ 啊！从你们这本小册子某些见证中所体现的倾向，以及你们的某些言行来看，好像所有的罪都能被归结为或理解为“诉诸武力”，而且仅仅是人民的诉诸武力。你们看来混淆了派系与良知的界限，因为从总体上看，你们的言行并不一致——我们很难相信你们伪装的不安。因为我们看到，你们当中有些人一边宣称厌恶这世上的财富，一边却像秃鹰般对它趋之若鹜，像死神般欲壑难填！ 你们这本小册子的第三页所引用的《圣经》的话，“人所行的，若蒙耶和华喜悦，耶和华也使他的仇敌与他和好”，从你们的角度来说，未免选择得太不明智。因为这恰恰证明了，英国国王（你们是这么热切地支持他）所行的事无法使耶和华喜悦，否则，他的统治就该是和平的。 现在，我要来分析这本小册子的后半部分，与它相比，前面这些看起来都只不过是个引子。 “从我们受上天的召唤宣扬耶稣基督的福音以来，我们内心所秉持的原则和宗旨就是：树立和废除国王，是上帝的特权。他所行的事，必有他的原因；不容我们插手，也不容我们置喙；不要越权行事，更不要阴谋破坏或推翻国王的政权。我们能做的是祈祷，为国王，为这个国家的安全，为全人类的福祉祈祷——愿我们在上帝为我们安排的政府统治下，拥有平和安宁的生活，彼此友善，真诚正直。”——倘若这真的是你们所信奉的宗旨，为什么你们自己不遵守它？为什么不把所谓的“上帝的工作”留给上帝自己去处理？你们的教义指导你们耐心等待，谦卑聆听，看事情将如何发展，并虔诚接受这样的结果，因为这是神所赐予你们的。所以，如果这些真的是你的原则，又为什么要发表这本政治宣言？你们发表这本小册子的行为，恰恰证明了你们要么并不相信自己宣扬的主张，要么缺乏德行，无法在行动上践行信仰。 贵格会的教义主张让人平心静气，与世无争，顺服任何管理他们的政府。倘若树立和废除国王确实是上帝的特权，那么，上帝的行事必不会受我们的影响。因此，贵格会的教义本身让你们接受所有曾发生在或可能发生在国王身上的任何事情，无论发生什么，都是上帝的旨意。那么，奥利弗·克伦威尔[4]要向你们致谢，而查尔斯[5]也并非死于英国人民之手。如果现在这个傲慢模仿他的英国国王最终落得和查尔斯一世同样的下场，贵格会这本小册子的作者和出版者们就只能自食其果，坦然接受这个事实。但是，国王们并不是被神迹所带走的，政权更替也不是由常见的人力之外的任何其他方式实现的，正如我们现在所做的那样。哪怕是救世主所预见到的驱逐犹太人的行为，也是靠武力完成的。因此，如果你们拒绝支持其中一方，你们就不应该插手干涉另一方，你们只能静静地等待事情发生。除非你们能通过神权来证明，上帝创造了这个新世界，并把它安排在距离旧世界尽可能远的地方，一个在东边，一个在西边，但却反对它脱离那个腐朽破败的英国王室——除非你们能证明这一点，否则，你们怎么能在自身教义的基础上，鼓吹并煽动人民“坚定地团结在一起，对那些试图切断我们与大不列颠帝国血脉相连的美好联系、试图反对我们对国王陛下以及对他合法任命的政权关系的所有著作和方案，表达最深切的憎恶”，这简直是扇在你们脸上一记响亮的耳光！你们这些人，就在同一段的上文中还在默默地、顺从地放弃任命，改变或废除国王和政府的权力，将它放到上帝手上，现在却将自己的教义置于脑后，试图参与到这件事中。你们所得出的结论，真的能从上文的教义里推导出来吗？这两者之间的矛盾是太过明显，其中的荒谬之处又是那么可笑。会出现这种情况，只能是因为这本小册子的作者们是一个穷途末路的政党中思维狭隘、脾气乖劣的那群人，你们的理解能力被自身的狭隘和易怒的品性所禁锢。你们并不能代表全体贵格会教友，只能代表其中的一小部分人。 对你们这本小册子的分析就到此为止（尽管你们呼吁憎恶，但我却要请所有读者别做同样的事，只要冷静客观地阅读并评价它）。在此，我想补充几句话。“树立和废除国王”，这话的意思是，将一个原本不是国王的人立为国王，或是将一个原本是国王的人赶下王位。而这与我们当前的形势有什么关系呢？我们既不想扶立谁，也不想废黜谁，只是不想和国王有任何关系。所以，不管怎么看，这本小册子都只是给你们的判断力蒙羞，综合下列许多其他原因，还是别发表的好。 首先，这样做会贬损一切宗教的形象，使宗教派别参与政治辩论，这对整个社会来说都是极端危险的。 其次，这样做会使这个教派中的所有教友——他们当中的许多人不同意发表这本政治宣言——看起来与它有关，并好像支持这种政治立场。 再次，这样做不利于北美大陆的和谐与友谊，而这种团结的氛围正是在你们的慷慨捐助下协助建立起来的。维持这种和谐关系，对我们所有人来说都至关重要。 说到这里，不带愤怒，也没有憎恶，我该就此搁笔了。诚挚地祝愿你们，作为普通人，也作为基督徒，你们能充分地、不受干扰地享受到每一项公民权利与宗教权利。作为回报，希望你们也能保障其他人的权利。但是，在这本小册子中你们所树立起来的政治和宗教混在一起的恶劣先例，将会遭到每一位美洲居民的谴责与反对！ [1] 1763年，《巴黎条约》以前，根据这一条约，法国丧失了它的殖民地，而英国人则获得了北美广大地区的全部占有权。 [2] 1772—1774年成立的通讯委员会，由北美十三个英国殖民地的劳动革命地方政权组成。 [3] “你享受过繁华，也经历过逆境。你曾被推翻过，尝过被祖国流放的滋味；也曾统治过，登上过王位。作为被统治者，你有理由深知在上帝和人类的眼里，统治者是多么的可憎。如果在这些声明和警告后，你仍然无法全心全意地顺服上帝，遗忘了这位在你困难时仍眷顾你的神，如果你仍然无法放弃声色犬马的空虚生活，你必将受到严重的谴责！——避开陷阱吧，避开那些拉你走向罪恶的诱惑。最完美和最有效的拯救，是将你自己沐浴在耶稣基督的光芒下，让它照耀着你的灵魂。它不会欺哄你，也不会让你在曾犯过的罪中痛苦呻吟。”——巴克莱《致查尔斯二世书》 [4] 1599—1658年，英国清教徒革命的领袖人物，在当时的内战中打败了保皇党人，将国王查尔斯一世送上断头台，并将英国改制为资产阶级共和国。 [5] 指1649年被奥利弗·克伦威尔率领的议会军送上断头台的英王查尔斯一世。 Agrarian Justice 关于土地的公平问题 土地公平论 基金的创建方式 实施本方案，同时利用它促进公共利益的方法 作者自序 下面这篇文章于1795年冬到1796年写成。由于我当时尚未决定究竟是在战争期间还是和平来临之际发表，这篇文章自完成起便一直被搁置，未曾修改或增减。 促使我现在发表这篇文章的原因是，兰达夫的沃森主教的一次布道。一些读者可能会记得，为了回应我所著的《理性时代》第二部分，这位主教大人曾写了一本题为《向圣经致歉》的书。我买了一本，主教大人可能很快就会收到我对该主题的回应。 在主教大人这本书的末尾，是一份他所著作品的清单，其中便有这篇布道文，题为“上帝的智慧与慈爱，因他同时创造了富人与穷人。附录中对英国和法国当前现状的思考”。 这篇布道文中的谬论促使我决定发表这篇《关于土地的公平问题》。认为上帝创造了富人与穷人，这是错误的。上帝只创造了男人与女人，然后赐给他们可以继承的土地…… 与其傲慢地鼓励人群中的一部分人……牧师更应该将他们的时间花在改善人类的普遍生存条件上。宗教的实用性体现在善行上，而事奉上帝的唯一方式是努力使他的子民更幸福，任何不以此为目的的布道都是虚伪的废话。 托马斯·潘恩 土地公平论 立法改革的首要目的之一，应该是维护所谓的文明生活的利益，与此同时，纠正它所带来的弊端。 那种被骄傲地（也许是错误地）称为“文明”的状态究竟是极大地促进了还是极大地损害了人类的普遍幸福，这个问题仍存在强烈争议。一方面，观察者在光怪陆离的华美景象中晕眩；另一方面，他又会被看到的悲惨景象所震惊。文明造成了这样的贫富差距，人类最富裕和最贫穷的阶层都在文明国家中并存。 要了解社会本应该是什么状况，有必要大致了解一下人类在自然和原始状态下生活的情况，比如目前的北美印第安人。在那种状态下，你看不到在欧洲所有城镇和街道上放眼皆是的贫穷与匮乏，也看不到因贫穷和匮乏而带来的凄惨困境。因此，贫穷是所谓文明生活的产物，它在自然状态下是不存在的。但另一方面，自然状态也不具备由农业、艺术、科学和制造业所带来的优势。 与欧洲穷人相比，印第安人的生活就像度假那么闲适。但是，与欧洲富人相比，他们的生活又显得很悲惨。因此，文明或所谓的文明，有两方面的作用：它使社会中的一部分人比在自然状态下更加富裕，另一部分人比在自然状态下更加贫穷。 从自然状态进化到文明状态的可能性是一直存在的，但从文明状态退化到自然状态是绝不可能的。原因是：处于自然状态下的人们靠狩猎维生，而文明状态下的人们靠耕种土地维生；要获取足够的食物，前者需要的土地数量是后者的十倍。因此，当一个国家在耕作、艺术和科学的协助下变得人口稠密，就必须继续保持这种状态，因为一旦文明状态消失，土地里的粮食就只能供应原先十分之一的居民。所以，现在必须做的，就是纠正从自然状态到文明状态的进化过程所带来的弊端，并维护它所带来的优势。 从这个方面考虑，文明的首要原则曾经是、以后也应该是：每一个出生在这世上的人，在文明状态开始后，他的生存状态不能比文明状态开始前更糟糕。但事实上，在欧洲的每个国家，数百万的人的生存状态远比他们出生在文明状态开始前更恶劣，也比出生在今天的北美印第安地区更糟糕。下面，我将会说明这种情况是如何发生的。 一个毋庸置疑的事实是，天然的、未开垦状态下的土地曾经是、以后也将一直是人类的共同财产。因此，每个人出生时就拥有财产。他与其他人一起终生共同拥有土地以及土地上所有的自然产物，无论是蔬菜或动物。 但是，如前所述，与处于耕种状态的土地相比，自然状态下的土地只能养活一小群居民。由于不可能将耕作带来的改良程度与被改良的土地本身分割开来，在这种无法分割的联系的基础上，产生了土地私有制的概念。然而，只有改良后提升的价值才属于私有财产，土地本身并不是。因此，每个已开垦土地的人都应该为他所拥有的土地向整个社会缴纳“地租”（我暂且没想到更合适的词语来表达这个意思）。这些地租，将汇集成本方案中所建议的基金。 从历史演变的过程以及事物自身的性质可以推断出，土地私有制这个概念起源于农耕时期。在此之前，作为私有财产的土地这种东西并不存在。它不可能存在于人类发展的第一阶段，即狩猎时期。它也不存在于人类发展的第二阶段，即畜牧时期。从《圣经》上那段可信赖的历史来看，亚伯拉罕、以撒、雅各和约伯都不曾拥有过土地。他们的财产是按畜群计算，他们也总是跟着牛羊群从一个地方迁移到另一个地方。当时，在这些人所居住的气候干燥的阿拉伯国家，人们经常为使用水井起纷争。把土地声称为自己财产的这种行为，是不受认可的。 最初，不可能有“土地私有财产”这种东西。人类无法创造出土地，尽管他拥有在土地上生活的天赋权利，却没有权力将其中的任何一部分永远占为己有。造物主也不可能开立一间土地管理局，在这里颁布第一批地契。那么，这种土地私有财产的概念是什么时候出现的？如前所述，我的回答是：当人们开始开垦土地的时候，由于无法将耕作带来的改良程度与被改良的土地本身分割开来，土地私有财产的概念就随之形成了。当改良后土地的价值远远超过土地本身价值的时候，后者便湮没其中。到最后，原本是所有人共同拥有的权利，就这样与个体的耕种权利混淆在一起。但是，这些不同的权利类型仍然存在，只要土地存在，它们就始终有区别。 只有追溯到一个事物的源头，才能正确地理解它。只有正确地理解事物，才能划清正确与错误的界限，并且让每个人都清楚这个界限。我将这本小册子命名为《关于土地的公平问题》，以便与《土地法》区分开来。在一个以农耕为主的国家里，再没有什么比“土地法”更不公平的事物。这是因为，尽管作为这个世界的居民，每个人都享有对未开垦状态下的土地的共同所有权，这并不意味着他也享有对已开垦状态下的土地的共同所有权。土地私有制得到广泛认可后，由耕种附加在土地上的改良价值，就成为耕种者、耕种者的继承人或是从耕种者手中购买了这片土地的买主的私有财产，尽管这片土地原本并没有主人。虽然我热心拥护所有因土地私有制的实行而丧失对土地的天然继承权的人们的权利，我也同样要捍卫那些土地占有人的应得权利。 农耕是人类发明带来的对自然最伟大的改良之一，它赋予了耕种后的土地十倍于原来的价值。但是，随之产生的土地垄断带来了最大的罪恶，它使每个国家一半以上的居民丧失了他们与生俱来的土地所有权，却没有补偿他们相应的损失，因此造成前所未有的贫穷和悲惨。 当我为这些被剥夺天然的土地继承权的人们呼吁时，我是在为权利辩护，而不是在乞求施舍。这种权利，一旦起初被忽视，而后只能通过政府体制的革命才能得以伸张。让我们向这些革命致敬，因为它们伸张了正义；让我们传播这些革命的原则，因为它们为我们带来福祉。 在简单阐述了这样做的积极意义后，下面我将提出我的方案，即： 建立一个全国性的基金，从中向每个年满21周岁的人支付15英镑，作为对他或她因土地私有制的实行而丧失天然继承权的部分补偿。 同时，向每个在世的人每年支付10英镑，直到他或她年满50周岁为止，并向今后所有活到50周岁的人同样每年支付10英镑。 基金的创建方式 我已经明确了如下原则：未开垦状态下的土地以前是、以后也将一直是人类的共同财产，每个人生来都享有对未开垦土地的权利，与耕种和所谓文明生活密不可分的土地私有制剥夺了一部分人的财产，却没有对他们的损失给与相应的补偿。 然而犯错的并不是现在的土地所有者。我并不想也不该埋怨他们，除非他们采取了有违公正的犯罪手段。错的是整个体制，它不为人知地渗入这个世界，然后又得到《土地法》的支持。但是，后世可以通过改革来修正这个错误，在不减少、不扰乱现有土地所有者的财产的前提下，建立基金，并让它在建立的当年或此后不久启动运行。下面，我会具体说明。 如前所述，建议向每个人，无论贫富，都支付补偿金，这是最好的做法，可以避免不平等待遇。这也是最正确的做法，因为补偿金是用来补偿对天然继承权的丧失，而这是每个人都享有的权利，与他曾创造过什么财富或是从财富的创造者手中继承过什么东西无关，不愿意接受补偿金的人可以把它捐赠给公共基金。 倘若我们接受这样的前提：如果一个人出生在文明社会中，那么他的生存状态就必须比出生在自然状态的社会中更好；而文明也应该为实现这个目的而努力，那么，唯一的实现方式就是从土地私有财产中提取出一部分相当于它所吸收的天然继承权的价值。 有许多不同的方法可以达到这个目的，但是，看起来最好的方法是（不仅因为这个方法运行起来不会扰乱现有土地所有人的财产秩序，或影响对建立政权和革命至关重要的税款或借款的征收，也因为这种方法最简单也最有效，财产扣除的时机也最合适）：在财产因某个人的死亡而转移到另一个人手中时，进行扣除。在这种情形下，馈赠者并没有真的给予什么，继承者也没有付出什么。唯一与他们切身相关的是：对土地的天然继承权的垄断在他们手中终结。这种垄断从来就不是一种权利，宽厚的人不会希望它继续存在，公正的人会很高兴看到它被废除。 我的健康状况不允许我对概率论进行充分研究，并尽可能做出精确计算。因此，我在这个方面提供的更多是观察与反思的结果，而不是从具体信息中得出的答案。但我相信，你会发现它基本上符合事实。 首先，将21岁作为成年期。国家的所有财产，无论是动产或不动产，通常都由这个年龄以上的人所拥有。接下来，作为计算的基准，有必要知道人们过了这个年龄以后平均还能活多少年。对此，我按平均30年计算。尽管许多人在21岁后还会再活40年、 50年或60年，但另一些人会提前去世，在此期间每个年龄都会有人死去。 如果将成年后的平均寿命按30年计算，那么，在没有某种重大变化的情况下，国家的全部财富或资本，或与它数量相当的资产经历一个循环（换句话说，随着上一代人的过世而流转到下一代人手中）的平均时间，也是30年左右。这是因为，尽管在许多情况下，一部分财产会在某些人手中长达40年、 50年或60年，但另一部分财产可能在30年间却流转了两到三次。因此，财富的平均循环周期仍然是30年左右。因为如果一个国家的半数资产在30年内流转两次（另一半资产在六十年内才流转一次），这就相当于整个国家的全部资产在30年内只流转了一次。 如果将30年作为整个国家的全部资产，或与它数量相当的资产流转一次的平均时间，那么，每年流转的资产数量就是总资产的三十分之一。换句话说，每年有三十分之一的资产因上一代人去世而移转给下一代人。既然这个资产数目是已知的，那么，在确定扣除的比例后，就能计算出我在上文中建议的基金每年的所得或收入。 在查看这份英国首相皮特的演讲（在英国被称为《国家财政预算》的1796年财政方案）时，我在开篇找到了他对英国国家资产的估算。既然手头有了这个估算数字，下面，我便将它作为讨论相关问题的基础。既然我们知道英国的全部资产与人口数量，那么，就能通过它们之间的比例和其他国家的人口数量，计算出其他国家的全部资产数量。在此，我倾向于直接使用皮特首相的估算值，以便向首相大人表明：根据他自己确定的数额，有多少财产能被用在更有价值的地方，而不是像他这样浪费在拥戴波旁王朝的疯狂举动中。波旁王朝的国王们对英国人民算得了什么？还不如保证人们有饭吃。 皮特先生声称，英国的全部资产，包括动产和不动产，共有13亿英镑，大约是法国（包括比利时）国家资产的四分之一。各国上一个收获季节的成果表明，法国的土壤比英国的土壤产量更高，用法国的土地养育2400万至2500万人民，比用英国的土地养育700万至750万人民更有效率。 13亿国家资产的三十分之一就是43,333,333英镑，这是每年英国去世者遗留给继承者的那一部分流转资产。按法国与英国的人口比例为4:1 计算，法国的每年流转资产大约是173,000,000英镑。在这每年流转的43,333,333英镑当中，应当减去被吸收的天然继承权的价值，公平起见，这个价值应该按总数的十分之一计算。 通常情况是，在这部分每年流转下来的财产当中，其中一部分是由直系子女继承，另一部分是由旁系亲属继承，这两者之间的比例大约是3:1。换句话说，每年大约有3千万英镑由直系子女继承，剩下的 13,333,333英镑则由远亲或陌生人继承。 考虑到一个人总是与社会相联系，继承者与过世者的关系越疏远，这种联系就相应的越重要。因此，在没有直系继承人的情况下，归属于社会的财富应该超过全部财产的十分之一。倘若根据下一代亲属的亲疏程度不同，超出的这部分财产按5%到10%或12%计算，以便与可能减少的无人继承的财产相平衡。后者应该给社会，而不是政府，因此又另外增加了10%。因此，从每年转手的43,333,333英镑财产中，将有下列财产进入基金： 30,000,000×10% = 3,000,000英镑 13,333,333×（10% + 10%） = 2,666,666英镑 总计：每年的流转资产共43,333,333英镑，其中有5,666,666英镑进入基金。 在计算出该基金的年度进账后，接下来，我将讨论与这个基金相对应的人口数量，并将它与基金的用途相比较。 英国人口数量不超过750万，其中超过50岁的大约有40万人。然而真正接受上述提议的每年10英镑的人会少于这个数，尽管他们享有这个权利。对于那些年收入超过200或300英镑的许多人来说，我不认为他们会接受这区区10英镑。但是，我们经常看到，即使是年过60岁的富人们也可能突然陷入贫穷，这些人将始终拥有提取所有余款的权利。因此，从上述基金总数的5,666,6667英镑中给40万年长者每人发放10英镑，每年就是400万英镑。 现在，我要来谈谈每年届满21周岁的居民。如果所有人的死亡年龄都超过21周岁，那么每年届满21周岁的人数就必须与每年死亡的人数相等，才能保持总人数不变。但是，大部分人都是在未满21周岁时去世的，因此每年届满21周岁的人数不到死亡人数的一半。在全部 750 万人当中，每年的死亡人数大概在22万左右，每年届满21周岁的人数大概是10万。但是，正如刚才所分析的那样，并不是所有有权获得这笔钱的人都会接受这15英镑。假设其中有10%的人拒绝接受，那么，相应的数额如下： 每年的基金总数 5,666,666英镑 给40万居民每人10英镑 4,000,000英镑 给9万年满21周岁的居民每人15英镑 1,350,000英镑 总支出：5,350,000英镑 剩余：316,000英镑 在每个国家里，都有一些盲人和身有残疾的人无法独立维持生计。但是，由于大部分盲人都会是超过50岁的老人，他们将享受那个年龄段的待遇。剩余的316,666英镑将用来提供给未满50周岁的盲人和身有残疾者，按每人每年10英镑发放。 在完成所有必要的计算，并解释了本方案的细节后，我想在结尾发表一些意见。 我在此所呼吁的，并不是施舍，而是权利；并不是赠予，而是公正。文明目前的状态既令人厌恶，又不公平，它完全背离了原本应该呈现的状态，有必要对此进行一场革命。富裕和贫贱的鲜明对照总是进入我们的视线，刺痛我们的眼睛，就好像活人与死人的尸体被镣铐系在一起。尽管我与其他人一样，并不在意财富，但我与财富为友，因为它们能被用来做善事。我不介意一部分人多么富有，只要没有人因他们的富裕而变得生活凄惨。但是，当生活中还有这么多悲惨的场景，我们便难以享受到富裕带来的幸福感。这些悲惨的景象，以及它所引起的难受感，它们虽然能被压制下去，却无法被彻底消除。与扣除财产的10%相比，这种难受感更能抵消富裕带来的幸福感。一个不愿意出钱消除这种难受感的人毫无慈悲心可言，即使是对他自己。 在每个国家，都有一些由个人设立的规模庞大的慈善机构。然而，考虑到需要被减轻的社会悲惨程度，任何个人能做的都只是杯水车薪。他或许能满足自己的良心，却无法满足他的灵魂。他也许能倾尽所有，却也只能减轻他人的少许苦楚。只有像滑轮一样把整个文明社会组织起来，才能消除全部的苦楚。 上文中所提出的方案，将惠及全民。它将立即减轻并消除三类人的苦难：盲人、有残疾的人和年老的穷人，它还将为下一代人提供防止他们变得贫穷的方法。与此同时，它不会扰乱或干扰任何全国性的方案。为了证明确实会产生这样的结果，我们有必要保证：在各个方面，这个方案的执行与效果都好像是每个人自愿订立遗嘱，并按上文所提议的方式来处理资产。 但是，这个方案的基本原则是公正，而不是仁爱。在所有重要的举措中，都有必要由一个远比“仁爱”更具有普遍意义的原则。至于公正，不应该由那些没有利益关系的个人来决定他们是否想维护公正。因此，如果站在公正的立场上考虑这个方案，应该由全体人民基于革命的原则自发地行动，行动应该以国家的名义，而不是个人的名义进行。 当人们意识到这个方案是公正的，就会激发出巨大的能量，这种能量将使整个革命受益。这个方案还将使国家资源成倍增长，因为财富就像植物一样，会随着枝条的增加而生长。当一对年轻夫妇开始闯世界时，他们白手起家，还是每个人手中有15英镑，这会造成截然不同的差异。如果手上有了这15英镑，他们就能买一头奶牛、一些工具，种植几亩田地。他们不再是社会的负担（这种情况在生育孩子的速度太快、无力抚养的时候经常出现），而是成为有用的、能赚钱的居民。如果向人们提供经济援助，使他们开垦更多的小块土地，国家的土地价值也会随之增加。 在这个用不公正的手段夺得了“文明”这个虚名的社会里，通常的做法是（这种做法既不能称作是慈善，也不是什么贤明之举）：只有在人们陷入贫穷和悲惨的境地，才为他们提供援助。从经济的角度说，采取措施防止他们陷入贫穷，不是更好吗？要达到这个目的，最好的办法就是在每个人达到21周岁的时候，让他们都能继承一些东西作为创业资本。这个社会存在着极端的贫富两极分化，说明存在严重的弊端，并需要公正来修正它。在所有国家里，都有大量的穷人将贫穷遗传给下一代，已经几乎不可能只靠他们自己来摆脱困境。还需要注意到的是，在所有所谓的文明国家里，穷人的数量都在增加，每年陷入贫困的人都比脱贫的人多。 尽管公正与人道才是本方案的基础原则，利益并不在考虑范围内，但是，如果能证明某个方案是有利可图的，这对确立该方案总是有好处的。任何一个提交给公众考虑的方案是否能取得成功，最终取决于支持这一方案的利益相关者的人数，以及原则的公正性。 我所提出的这个方案将令所有人受益，而不会伤害到任何人的利益，它会使法兰西共和国的利益与个人利益巩固联合起来。对于为数众多的被土地私有制剥夺了天然继承权的那些人来说，这个方案将是一场全国性的公正行为。对于那些即将离世的且财产不多的人来说，这个方案对他们的子女将是个养老保障，其收益超过他们投入基金的钱款。此外，它还能为财富的积累提供一定程度的保障，这是眼下欧洲那些岌岌可危的旧政府所无法做到的。 我并不认为在欧洲的哪个国家里，会有超过十分之一的家庭在户主去世时能留下超过500英镑的产权清晰的遗产。对于所有家庭来说，这个方案都是有利的。对于有500英镑遗产的家庭来说，只需要支付50英镑到基金里，如果家里有两个未成年的孩子，他们在年满21周岁时每人能获得15英镑（共30英镑），然后在50岁以后每年有权获得10英镑，这个基金会在财富的自我增长中得以维持。我知道在英国，尽管这类财富的所有者最终能享有对他们90%财产的保护权，他们仍会公开反对这个方案。但是，暂且不去深究他们是如何得到这笔财产的，只让他们回想起来：他们是支持发起这场战争的人，皮特首相为了支持奥地利和波旁王朝的专制统治、反对法国大革命，每年向人民新征的税收远比根据本方案每年所要支付的金额还要多。 我在计算本方案的过程时，已经将私有财产制和土地私有制考虑在内。为什么要考虑土地私有制的理由，上面已经解释过。至于将私有财产制纳入计算的理由，所基于的原则不同，但同样有充分依据。如前所述，土地是造物主赋予全人类的免费礼物。私有财产是社会的产物，如果没有借助社会的力量，个人是无法获得私有财产的，正如他无法自己创造土地一样。 如果将一个人从社会中隔离开来，让他占有一个小岛或一块大陆，他无法因此获得私有财产，也无法变得富裕，手段与结果不可分割地联系在一起。在任何情况下，倘若没有手段，也就无法获得结果。因此，任何私有财产的积累，都不可能仅靠个人的双手制造出来，而是从社会生活中得到的。因为个人所有的私有财产都来源于社会，因此，无论是依据公正、感恩还是文明的原则，个人都应该将他所积累的私有财产的一部分回归社会。 这是从一个普遍原则的角度来考虑问题，但这样做也许是最好的。因为如果我们仔细审视这件事，我们便会发现：在许多情况下，私有财产的积累是向创造财富的劳动者支付太少报酬的结果。这样做的结果是：创造财富的劳动者们在贫穷中老去，而资本家却富得流油。 要想精确计算出劳动力价格与它所创造出来的利润之间的比例，多半是不可能的。作为对这种不公正待遇的辩解，也有人会说，就算给劳动者每天支付更多的薪资，他也不会将钱存起来养老，他的生活状态也不会因此更好。所以，就让社会做他的财政部长吧，为他将这笔钱存在一个共同基金里。如果说因为他自己不能妥善理财，别人就能拿走他的钱，这是毫无根据的。 这种席卷欧洲的文明状态，它所遵循的原则是不公正的，造成的效果也是可怕的。正是意识到这一点，同时担心一旦在欧洲任何国家展开深入调查，这种状态便无法维持，所以财产所有者们才会恐惧一切与革命有关的思想。阻碍革命发展的，是革命所带来的风险，而不是它所依循的原则。因此，建立一个不但能预防社会中一部分人陷入贫穷的悲惨境地，而且也使另一部分人免遭劫掠，这不仅是出于公正与人道的考量，对财产安全也是至关重要的。 在所有国家，以前那种对财富迷信式的敬畏和奴隶般的尊重正在消失，给财产所有者留下的是各种动乱的事件。当财富的光辉不再令人们神魂颠倒，而是激起厌恶的情绪；当它们不再引发钦羡，而是被视为对贫穷的侮辱；当铺张炫耀的表象使人怀疑财产来源的正当性的时候，私有财产的问题就变得至关重要。只有在一个公正的体制中，财产所有者才能高枕无忧。 为了解除私有财产面临的危险，必须消除人们的反感态度。要想这么做，就必须使财富能带来国家福祉，并惠泽每个人。当一个人的财产超过他人，全国性基金也会按相应的比例随之增加的时候；当人们看到，这个基金的增长有赖于每个个人财富的增长的时候；当一个人拥有的财富越多，他能为大众带来的利益也越多的时候——只有在这种时候，对财富的厌恶才会消除，私有财产才会成为国家利益与安全的永久性基础。 在法国，我没有任何与该方案相关的私有财产，我所拥有的财产（尽管不多）都在美国境内。但是，一旦这项基金成立起来，我愿意捐赠100英镑。一旦在英国也建立起类似基金，我也愿意捐赠同样数额。 在政府体制方面进行的革命，必然会伴随着文明状态方面的变革。无论一个国家的革命带来了由坏变好或是由好变坏的效果，这个国家的文明状态也必须随之改变，才能巩固革命的效果。专制政府是建立在悲惨的文明基础上的，其基本特征是人们思维的退化，许多人生活惨淡。这样的政府只是将人视为动物，认为发挥智力能力不是人们的特权，“他要做的只是遵守法律，除此之外，他与法律毫无关系”（引自英国霍斯利主教在英国国会上的发言）。专制政府通过用贫困摧毁人们精神状态的方法来维护统治，他们并不担心这种绝望会激怒人们。 文明状态方面的变革，将完善法国大革命的效果。实行人民代议制的政府才是真正的政府，这种观念已经深入人心，在世界范围内迅速传播开来。它的合理性显而易见，它的正当性即使是连反对者都能感受到。如果在这样的政府形式中，能产生一种井然有序的文明状态，以至于在法兰西共和国出生的每一个人，不管男女，都能在踏足社会之前继承一些财富，让他们能明确看到可以摆脱悲惨困境的前景（这样的悲惨生活，在其他旧政府里总要伴随人的一生），那么，法国大革命便会在世界各国赢得拥护和支持！ 原则的力量能穿透人类军队无法攻占的地方。当老练的管理手段无法奏效的时候，它仍然能获胜。无论是莱茵河、英吉利海峡或大西洋，都不能阻挡它前进的步伐。这股力量将横扫世界，无往不胜。 实施本方案，同时利用它促进公共利益的方法 I. 每个行政区应通过初级议会选举出三名行政区委员。他们将根据关于实施本方案的法定章程，受理并记录所有发生在该行政区的相关事务。 II. 法律要对如何查明过世者遗产的方法加以规定。 III. 当查明过世人员的遗产后，达到法定年龄的主要遗产继承人或共同继承人中年龄最大者，或是在前者未达到法定年龄的情况下，死者遗嘱指定的代理人，应该向所在行政区的委员支付保证金。保证金数额为上述遗产的十分之一，应在一年或更短的时间内（还款期限由交款人自行选择），以同等数额分四次缴清。缴纳保证金期间，一半遗产应留作抵押，直至保证金全部缴清为止。 IV. 该保证金应在行政区委员办公室记录在册，缴纳的保证金应被存在巴黎的国家银行。银行每季度应公布它所收到的保证金数额，以及自上季度公告发布以来，哪些保证金应在本季度内被全部或部分还清。 V. 巴黎国家银行应对它持有的保证金抵押物发行银行票据。这些发行的票据，将被用来支付老年人的养老金以及年满21周岁的人员的补偿金。我们有理由相信，暂时没有紧迫用钱需求的人会推迟兑现这些资金，这些资金会日渐积聚，使提款人获得更大的提取权利。在这种情况下，建议在每个行政区设立一个荣誉登记簿，记录下那些推迟行使提款权利、至少在当前战争期间暂不提款的人员名字。 VI. 鉴于财产继承人必须在四个季度内，或在他们选择的更短时间内，偿清保证金，银行第一季度结束前就会有现金入账，可以兑换需要收回的银行票据。 VII. 进入流通领域的银行票据，由于有超过票据价值四倍的、最优质的抵押物（有形资产）做担保，还有不断进入银行的现金可以保证随时兑换，它们在法兰西共和国各地都将具有永久价值。因此，人们可以直接用它来支付同等现金数额的税款或借款，因为政府总是能在银行里把它们兑换成现金。 VIII. 在本方案实施的第一年，有必要以现金形式收取遗产十分之一的保证金。但第一年结束后，遗产继承人可以选择用该基金为基础的银行票据，或是以现金形式来支付保证金。如果继承人以现金形式支付，现金将被存在巴黎国家银行，并领取到相同数额的银行票据；如果银行按基金数额来发行票据，要求提取的票据数额就会与基金数额相同。这样一来，执行这个方案的过程本身就创造出能使它顺利实施的手段。 Common Sense ■ Of the Origin and Design of Government in General. With Concise Remarks on the English Constitution ■ Of Monarchy and Hereditary Succession ■ Thoughts on the Present State of American Affairs ■ Of the Present Ability of America, with some Miscellaneous Reflections Introduction Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not yet sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favour; a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason. As a long and violent abuse of power, is generally the Means of calling the right of it in question (and in matters too which might never have been thought of, had not the Sufferers been aggravated into the inquiry) and as the king of England had undertaken in his own right, to support the Parliament in what he calls theirs, and as the good people of this country are grievously oppressed by the combination, they have an undoubted privilege to inquire into the pretensions of both, and equally to reject the usurpation of either. In the following sheets, the author hath studiously avoided every thing which is personal among ourselves. Compliments as well as censure to individuals make no part thereof. The wise, and the worthy, need not the triumph of a pamphlet; and those whose sentiments are injudicious, or unfriendly, will cease of themselves unless too much pains are bestowed upon their conversion. The cause of America is in a great measure the cause of all mankind. Many circumstances hath, and will arise, which are not local, but universal, and through which the principles of all Lovers of Mankind are affected, and in the Event of which, their Affections are interested. The laying a Country desolate with Fire and Sword, declaring War against the natural rights of all Mankind, and extirpating the Defenders thereof from the Face of the Earth, is the concern of every Man to whom Nature hath given the Power of feeling; of which Class, regardless of Party Censure, is the AUTHOR. P.S. The Publication of this new Edition hath been delayed, with a View of taking notice (had it been necessary) of any Attempt to refute the Doctrine of Independence: As no Answer hath yet appeared, it is now presumed that none will, the Time needful for getting such a Performance ready for the Public being considerably past. Who the Author of this Production is, is wholly unnecessary to the Public, as the Object for Attention is the doctrine itself, not the man. Yet it may not be unnecessary to say, That he is unconnected with any Party, and under no sort of Influence public or private, but the influence of reason and principle. Philadelphia, February 14, 1776 Of the Origin and Design of Government in General. With Concise Remarks on the English Constitution Some writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher. Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamities are heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built on the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform, and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows, that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others. In order to gain a clear and just idea of the design and end of government, let us suppose a small number of persons settled in some sequestered part of the earth, unconnected with the rest, they will then represent the first peopling of any country, or of the world. In this state of natural liberty, society will be their first thought. A thousand motives will excite them thereto, the strength of one man is so unequal to his wants, and his mind so unfitted for perpetual solitude, that he is soon obliged to seek assistance and relief of another, who in his turn requires the same. Four or five united would be able to raise a tolerable dwelling in the midst of a wilderness, but one man might labour out the common period of life without accomplishing any thing; when he had felled his timber he could not remove it, nor erect it after it was removed; hunger in the mean time would urge him from his work, and every different want call him a different way. Disease, nay even misfortune would be death, for though neither might be mortal, yet either would disable him from living, and reduce him to a state in which he might rather be said to perish than to die. Thus necessity, like a gravitating power, would soon form our newly arrived emigrants into society, the reciprocal blessings of which, would supersede, and render the obligations of law and government unnecessary while they remained perfectly just to each other; but as nothing but heaven is impregnable to vice, it will unavoidably happen, that in proportion as they surmount the first difficulties of emigration, which bound them together in a common cause, they will begin to relax in their duty and attachment to each other; and this remissness will point out the necessity, of establishing some form of government to supply the defect of moral virtue. Some convenient tree will afford them a State-House, under the branches of which, the whole colony may assemble to deliberate on public matters. It is more than probable that their first laws will have the title only of regulations, and be enforced by no other penalty than public disesteem. In this first parliament every man, by natural right will have a seat. But as the colony increases, the public concerns will increase likewise, and the distance at which the members may be separated, will render it too inconvenient for all of them to meet on every occasion as at first, when their number was small, their habitations near, and the public concerns few and trifling. This will point out the convenience of their consenting to leave the legislative part to be managed by a select number chosen from the whole body, who are supposed to have the same concerns at stake which those who appointed them, and who will act in the same manner as the whole body would act, were they present. If the colony continues increasing, it will become necessary to augment the number of the representatives, and that the interest of every part of the colony may be attended to, it will be found best to divide the whole into convenient parts, each part sending its proper number; and that the elected might never form to themselves an interest separate from the electors, prudence will point out the propriety of having elections often; because as the elected might by that means return and mix again with the general body of the electors in a few months, their fidelity to the public will be secured by the prudent reflection of not making a rod for themselves. And as this frequent interchange will establish a common interest with every part of the community, they will mutually and naturally support each other, and on this (not on the unmeaning name of king) depends the strength of government, and the happiness of the governed. Here then is the origin and rise of government; namely, a mode rendered necessary by the inability of moral virtue to govern the world; here too is the design and end of government, viz. freedom and security. And however our eyes may be dazzled with show, or our ears deceived by sound; however prejudice may warp our wills, or interest darken our understanding, the simple voice of nature and of reason will say, it is right. I draw my idea of the form of government from a principle in nature, which no art can overturn, viz. that the more simple any thing is, the less liable it is to be disordered, and the easier repaired when disordered; and with this maxim in view, I offer a few remarks on the so much boasted constitution of England. That it was noble for the dark and slavish times in which it was erected, is granted. When the world was overrun with tyranny the least remove therefrom was a glorious rescue. But that it is imperfect, subject to convulsions, and incapable of producing what it seems to promise, is easily demonstrated. Absolute governments (tho’ the disgrace of human nature) have this advantage with them, that they are simple; if the people suffer, they know the head from which their suffering springs, know likewise the remedy, and are not bewildered by a variety of causes and cures. But the constitution of England is so exceedingly complex, that the nation may suffer for years together without being able to discover in which part the fault lies, some will say in one and some in another, and every political physician will advise a different medicine. I know it is difficult to get over local or long standing prejudices, yet if we will suffer ourselves to examine the component parts of the English constitution, we shall find them to be the base remains of two ancient tyrannies, compounded with some new republican materials. First. - The remains of monarchial tyranny in the person of the king. Secondly. - The remains of aristocratical tyranny in the persons of the peers. Thirdly. - The new republican materials in the persons of the commons, on whose virtue depends the freedom of England. The two first, by being hereditary, are independent of the people; wherefore in a constitutional sense they contribute nothing towards the freedom of the state. To say that the constitution of England is a union of three powers reciprocally checking each other, is farcical, either the words have no meaning, or they are flat contradictions. To say that the commons is a check upon the king, presupposes two things. First - That the king is not to be trusted without being looked after, or in other words, that a thirst for absolute power is the natural disease of monarchy. Secondly - That the commons, by being appointed for that purpose, are either wiser or more worthy of confidence than the crown. But as the same constitution which gives the commons a power to check the king by withholding the supplies, gives afterwards the king a power to check the commons, by empowering him to reject their other bills; it again supposes that the king is wiser than those whom it has already supposed to be wiser than him. A mere absurdity! There is something exceedingly ridiculous in the composition of monarchy; it first excludes a man from the means of information, yet empowers him to act in cases where the highest judgement is required. The state of a king shuts him from the world, yet the business of a king requires him to know it thoroughly; wherefore the different parts, unnaturally opposing and destroying each other, prove the whole character to be absurd and useless. Some writers have explained the English constitution thus; The king, say they, is one, the people another; the peers are a house in behalf of the king; the commons in behalf of the people; but this hath all the distinctions of a house divided against itself; and though the expressions be pleasantly arranged, yet when examined, they appear idle and ambiguous; and it will always happen, that the nicest construction that words are capable of, when applied to the description of some thing which either cannot exist, or is too incomprehensible to be within the compass of description, will be words of sound only, and though they may amuse the ear, they cannot inform the mind, for this explanation includes a previous question, viz. How came the king by a power which the people are afraid to trust, and always obliged to check? Such a power could not be the gift of a wise people, neither can any power, which needs checking, be from God; yet the provision, which the constitution makes, supposes such a power to exist. But the provision is unequal to the task; the means either cannot or will not accomplish the end, and the whole affair is a felo de se; for as the greater weight will always carry up the less, and as all the wheels of a machine are put in motion by one, it only remains to know which power in the constitution has the most weight, for that will govern; and though the others, or a part of them, may clog, or, as the phrase is, check the rapidity of its motion, yet so long as they cannot stop it, their endeavours will be ineffectual; the first moving power will at last have its way, and what it wants in speed, is supplied by time. That the crown is this overbearing part in the English constitution, needs not be mentioned, and that it derives its whole consequence merely from being the giver of places and pensions is self-evident, wherefore, though we have been wise enough to shut and lock a door against absolute monarchy, we at the same time have been foolish enough to put the crown in possession of the key. The prejudice of Englishmen, in favour of their own government by king, lords, and commons, arises as much or more from national pride than reason. Individuals are undoubtedly safer in England than in some other countries, but the will of the king is as much the law of the land in Britain as in France, with this difference, that instead of proceeding directly from his mouth, it is handed to the people under the more formidable shape of an act of parliament. For the fate of Charles the First hath only made kings more subtle—not more just. Wherefore, laying aside all national pride and prejudice in favour of modes and forms, the plain truth is, that it is wholly owing to the constitution of the people, and not to the constitution of the government, that the crown is not as oppressive in England as in Turkey. An inquiry into the constitutional errors in the English form of government is at this time highly necessary; for as we are never in a proper condition of doing justice to others, while we continue under the influence of some leading partiality, so neither are we capable of doing it to ourselves while we remain fettered by any obstinate prejudice. And as a man, who is attached to a prostitute, is unfitted to choose or judge a wife, so any prepossession in favour of a rotten constitution of government will disable us from discerning a good one. Of Monarchy and Hereditary Succession Mankind being originally equals in the order of creation, the equality could only be destroyed by some subsequent circumstance; the distinctions of rich, and poor, may in a great measure be accounted for, and that without having recourse to the harsh, ill-sounding names of oppression and avarice. Oppression is often the consequence, but seldom or never the means of riches; and though avarice will preserve a man from being necessitously poor, it generally makes him too timorous to be wealthy. But there is another and greater distinction for which no truly natural or religious reason can be assigned, and that is, the distinction of men into kings and subjects. Male and female are the distinctions of nature, good and bad the distinctions of heaven; but how a race of men came into the world so exalted above the rest, and distinguished like some new species, is worth inquiring into, and whether they are the means of happiness or of misery to mankind. In the early ages of the world, according to the scripture chronology, there were no kings; the consequence of which was, there were no wars; it is the pride of kings which throw mankind into confusion. Holland without a king hath enjoyed more peace for this last century than any of the monarchial governments in Europe. Antiquity favours the same remark; for the quiet and rural lives of the first patriarchs hath a happy something in them, which vanishes away when we come to the history of Jewish royalty. Government by kings was first introduced into the world by the Heathens, from whom the children of Israel copied the custom. It was the most prosperous invention the Devil ever set on foot for the promotion of idolatry. The Heathens paid divine honours to their deceased kings, and the Christian world hath improved on the plan by doing the same to their living ones. How impious is the title of sacred majesty applied to a worm, who in the midst of his splendor is crumbling into dust! As the exalting one man so greatly above the rest cannot be justified on the equal rights of nature, so neither can it be defended on the authority of scripture; for the will of the Almighty, as declared by Gideon and the prophet Samuel, expressly disapproves of government by kings. All anti-monarchical parts of scripture have been very smoothly glossed over in monarchical governments, but they undoubtedly merit the attention of countries which have their governments yet to form. “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s” is the scripture doctrine of courts, yet it is no support of monarchical government, for the Jews at that time were without a king, and in a state of vassalage to the Romans. Now three thousand years passed away from the Mosaic account of the creation, till the Jews under a national delusion requested a king. Till then their form of government (except in extraordinary cases, where the Almighty interposed) was a kind of republic administered by a judge and the elders of the tribes. Kings they had none, and it was held sinful to acknowledge any being under that title but the Lord of Hosts. And when a man seriously reflects on the idolatrous homage which is paid to the persons of kings, he need not wonder that the Almighty, ever jealous of his honour, should disapprove of a form of government which so impiously invades the prerogative of heaven. Monarchy is ranked in scripture as one of the sins of the Jews, for which a curse in reserve is denounced against them. The history of that transaction is worth attending to. The children of Israel being oppressed by the Midianites, Gideon marched against them with a small army, and victory, through the divine interposition, decided in his favour. The Jews, elate with success, and attributing it to the generalship of Gideon, proposed making him a king, saying, Rule thou over us, thou and thy son and thy son’s son. Here was temptation in its fullest extent; not a kingdom only, but an hereditary one, but Gideon in the piety of his soul replied, I will not rule over you, neither shall my son rule over you, THE LORD SHALL RULE OVER YOU. Words need not be more explicit; Gideon doth not decline the honour but denieth their right to give it; neither doth he compliment them with invented declarations of his thanks, but in the positive style of a prophet charges them with disaffection to their proper sovereign, the King of heaven. About one hundred and thirty years after this, they fell again into the same error. The hankering which the Jews had for the idolatrous customs of the Heathens, is something exceedingly unaccountable; but so it was, that laying hold of the misconduct of Samuel’s two sons, who were entrusted with some secular concerns, they came in an abrupt and clamorous manner to Samuel, saying, Behold thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways, now make us a king to judge us, like all other nations. And here we cannot but observe that their motives were bad, viz. that they might be like unto other nations, i.e. the Heathens, whereas their true glory laid in being as much unlike them as possible. But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, give us a king to judge us; and Samuel prayed unto the Lord, and the Lord said unto Samuel, hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee, for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, THAT I SHOULD NOT REIGN OVER THEM. According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt, even unto this day; wherewith they have forsaken me and served other Gods; so do they also unto thee. Now therefore hearken unto their voice, howbeit, protest solemnly unto them and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them, i.e. not of any particular king, but the general manner of the kings of the earth, whom Israel was so eagerly copying after. And notwithstanding the great distance of time and difference of manners, the character is still in fashion. And Samuel told all the words of the Lord unto the people, that asked of him a king. And he said, This shall be the manner of the king that shall reign over you; he will take your sons and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horseman, and some shall run before his chariots (this description agrees with the present mode of impressing men) and he will appoint him captains over thousands and captains over fifties, and will set them to ear his ground and reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots; and he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks and to be bakers (this describes the expense and luxury as well as the oppression of kings) and he will take your fields and your olive yards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants; and he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give them to his officers and to his servants (by which we see that bribery, corruption, and favouritism are the standing vices of kings) and he will take the tenth of your men servants, and your maid servants, and your goodliest young men and your asses, and put them to his work; and he will take the tenth of your sheep, and ye shall be his servants, and ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen, AND THE LORD WILL NOT HEAR YOU IN THAT DAY. This accounts for the continuation of monarchy; neither do the characters of the few good kings which have lived since, either sanctify the title, or blot out the sinfulness of the origin; the high encomium given of David takes no notice of him officially as a king, but only as a man after God’s own heart. Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel, and they said, Nay, but we will have a king over us, that we may be like all the nations, and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles. Samuel continued to reason with them, but to no purpose; he set before them their ingratitude, but all would not avail; and seeing them fully bent on their folly, he cried out, I will call unto the Lord, and he shall send thunder and rain (which then was a punishment, being in the time of wheat harvest) that ye may perceive and see that your wickedness is great which ye have done in the sight of the Lord, and the Lord sent thunder and rain that day, and all the people greatly feared the Lord and Samuel. And all the people said unto Samuel, Pray for thy servants unto the Lord thy God that we die not, for WE HAVE ADDED UNTO OUR SINS THIS EVIL, TO ASK A KING. These portions of scripture are direct and positive. They admit of no equivocal construction. That the Almighty hath here entered his protest against monarchical government, is true, or the scripture is false. And a man hath good reason to believe that there is as much of king-craft, as priest-craft, in withholding the scripture from the public in Popish countries. For monarchy in every instance is the Popery of government. To the evil of monarchy we have added that of hereditary succession; and as the first is a degradation and lessening of ourselves, so the second, claimed as a matter of right, is an insult and an imposition on posterity. For all men being originally equals, no one by birth could have a right to set up his own family in perpetual preference to all others for ever, and though himself might deserve some decent degree of honours of his contemporaries, yet his descendants might be far too unworthy to inherit them. One of the strongest natural proofs of the folly of hereditary right in kings, is, that nature disapproves it, otherwise she would not so frequently turn it into ridicule by giving mankind an ass for a lion. Secondly, as no man at first could possess any other public honours than were bestowed upon him, so the givers of those honours could have no power to give away the right of posterity. And though they might say, ‘We choose you for our head,’ they could not, without manifest injustice to their children, say, ‘that your children and your children’s children shall reign over ours for ever.’ Because such an unwise, unjust, unnatural compact might (perhaps) in the next succession put them under the government of a rogue or a fool. Most wise men, in their private sentiments, have ever treated hereditary right with contempt; yet it is one of those evils, which when once established is not easily removed; many submit from fear, others from superstition, and the more powerful part shares with the king the plunder of the rest. This is supposing the present race of kings in the world to have had an honourable origin; whereas it is more than probable, that could we take off the dark covering of antiquities, and trace them to their first rise, that we should find the first of them nothing better than the principal ruffian of some restless gang, whose savage manners or pre-eminence in subtlety obtained him the title of chief among plunderers; and who by increasing in power, and extending his depredations, over-awed the quiet and defenseless to purchase their safety by frequent contributions. Yet his electors could have no idea of giving hereditary right to his descendants, because such a perpetual exclusion of themselves was incompatible with the free and unrestrained principles they professed to live by. Wherefore, hereditary succession in the early ages of monarchy could not take place as a matter of claim, but as something casual or complemental; but as few or no records were extant in those days, and traditional history stuffed with fables, it was very easy, after the lapse of a few generations, to trump up some superstitious tale, conveniently timed, Mahomet like, to cram hereditary right down the throats of the vulgar. Perhaps the disorders which threatened, or seemed to threaten, on the decease of a leader and the choice of a new one (for elections among ruffians could not be very orderly) induced many at first to favour hereditary pretensions; by which means it happened, as it hath happened since, that what at first was submitted to as a convenience, was afterwards claimed as a right. England, since the conquest, hath known some few good monarchs, but groaned beneath a much larger number of bad ones; yet no man in his senses can say that their claim under William the Conqueror is a very honourable one. A French bastard landing with an armed banditti, and establishing himself king of England against the consent of the natives, is in plain terms a very paltry rascally original. — It certainly hath no divinity in it. However, it is needless to spend much time in exposing the folly of hereditary right, if there are any so weak as to believe it, let them promiscuously worship the ass and lion, and welcome. I shall neither copy their humility, nor disturb their devotion. Yet I should be glad to ask how they suppose kings came at first? The question admits but of three answers, viz. either by lot, by election, or by usurpation. If the first king was taken by lot, it establishes a precedent for the next, which excludes hereditary succession. Saul was by lot yet the succession was not hereditary, neither does it appear from that transaction there was any intention it ever should be. If the first king of any country was by election, that likewise establishes a precedent for the next; for to say, that the right of all future generations is taken away, by the act of the first electors, in their choice not only of a king, but of a family of kings for ever, hath no parallel in or out of scripture but the doctrine of original sin, which supposes the free will of all men lost in Adam; and from such comparison, and it will admit of no other, hereditary succession can derive no glory. For as in Adam all sinned, and as in the first electors all men obeyed; as in the one all mankind were subjected to Satan, and in the other to Sovereignty; as our innocence was lost in the first, and our authority in the last; and as both disable us from reassuming some former state and privilege, it unanswerably follows that original sin and hereditary succession are parallels. Dishonourable rank! Inglorious connection! Yet the most subtle sophist cannot produce a juster simile. As to usurpation, no man will be so hardy as to defend it; and that William the Conqueror was an usurper is a fact not to be contradicted. The plain truth is, that the antiquity of English monarchy will not bear looking into. But it is not so much the absurdity as the evil of hereditary succession which concerns mankind. Did it ensure a race of good and wise men it would have the seal of divine authority, but as it opens a door to the foolish, the wicked, and the improper, it hath in it the nature of oppression. Men who look upon themselves born to reign, and others to obey, soon grow insolent; selected from the rest of mankind their minds are early poisoned by importance; and the world they act in differs so materially from the world at large, that they have but little opportunity of knowing its true interests, and when they succeed to the government are frequently the most ignorant and unfit of any throughout the dominions. Another evil which attends hereditary succession is, that the throne is subject to be possessed by a minor at any age; all which time the regency, acting under the cover of a king, have every opportunity and inducement to betray their trust. The same national misfortune happens, when a king, worn out with age and infirmity, enters the last stage of human weakness. In both these cases the public becomes a prey to every miscreant, who can tamper successfully with the follies either of age or infancy. The most plausible plea, which hath ever been offered in favour of hereditary succession, is, that it preserves a nation from civil wars; and were this true, it would be weighty; whereas, it is the most barefaced falsity ever imposed upon mankind. The whole history of England disowns the fact. Thirty kings and two minors have reigned in that distracted kingdom since the conquest, in which time there have been (including the Revolution) no less than eight civil wars and nineteen rebellions. Wherefore instead of making for peace, it makes against it, and destroys the very foundation it seems to stand on. The contest for monarchy and succession, between the houses of York and Lancaster, laid England in a scene of blood for many years. Twelve pitched battles, besides skirmishes and sieges, were fought between Henry and Edward. Twice was Henry prisoner to Edward, who in his turn was prisoner to Henry. And so uncertain is the fate of war and the temper of a nation, when nothing but personal matters are the ground of a quarrel, that Henry was taken in triumph from a prison to a palace, and Edward obliged to fly from a palace to a foreign land; yet, as sudden transitions of temper are seldom lasting, Henry in his turn was driven from the throne, and Edward recalled to succeed him. The parliament always following the strongest side. This contest began in the reign of Henry the Sixth, and was not entirely extinguished till Henry the Seventh, in whom the families were united. Including a period of 67 years, viz. from 1422 to 1489. In short, monarchy and succession have laid (not this or that kingdom only) but the world in blood and ashes. ’Tis a form of government which the word of God bears testimony against, and blood will attend it. If we inquire into the business of a king, we shall find that in some countries they have none; and after sauntering away their lives without pleasure to themselves or advantage to the nation, withdraw from the scene, and leave their successors to tread the same idle ground. In absolute monarchies the whole weight of business civil and military, lies on the king; the children of Israel in their request for a king, urged this plea “that he may judge us, and go out before us and fight our battles.” But in countries where he is neither a judge nor a general, as in E-d (England), a man would be puzzled to know what is his business. The nearer any government approaches to a republic the less business there is for a king. It is somewhat difficult to find a proper name for the government of E-d (England). Sir William Meredith calls it a republic; but in its present state it is unworthy of the name, because the corrupt influence of the crown, by having all the places in its disposal, hath so effectually swallowed up the power, and eaten out the virtue of the house of commons (the republican part in the constitution) that the government of England is nearly as monarchical as that of France or Spain. Men fall out with names without understanding them. For it is the republican and not the monarchical part of the constitution of England which Englishmen glory in, viz. the liberty of choosing an house of commons from out of their own body—and it is easy to see that when republican virtue fails, slavery ensues. Why is the constitution of E-d (England) sickly, but because monarchy hath poisoned the republic, the crown hath engrossed the commons? In England a k- (king) hath little more to do than to make war and give away places; which in plain terms, is to impoverish the nation and set it together by the ears. A pretty business indeed for a man to be allowed eight hundred thousand sterling a year for, and worshipped into the bargain! Of more worth is one honest man to society, and in the sight of God, than all the crowned ruffians that ever lived. Thoughts on the Present State of American Affairs In the following pages I offer nothing more than simple facts, plain arguments, and common sense; and have no other preliminaries to settle with the reader, than that he will divest himself of prejudice and prepossession, and suffer his reason and his feelings to determine for themselves; that he will put on, or rather that he will not put off the true character of a man, and generously enlarge his views beyond the present day. Volumes have been written on the subject of the struggle between England and America. Men of all ranks have embarked in the controversy, from different motives, and with various designs; but all have been ineffectual, and the period of debate is closed. Arms, as the last resource, decide this contest; the appeal was the choice of the king, and the continent hath accepted the challenge. It hath been reported of the late Mr. Pelham (who tho’ an able minister was not without his faults) that on his being attacked in the house of commons, on the score, that his measures were only of a temporary kind, replied “They will last my time.” Should a thought so fatal and unmanly possess the colonies in the present contest, the name of ancestors will be remembered by future generations with detestation. The sun never shined on a cause of greater worth. ’Tis not the affair of a city, a county, a province, or a kingdom, but of a continent—of at least one eighth part of the habitable globe. ’Tis not the concern of a day, a year, or an age; posterity are virtually involved in the contest, and will be more or less affected, even to the end of time, by the proceedings now. Now is the seed time of continental union, faith and honour. The least fracture now will be like a name engraved with the point of a pin on the tender rind of a young oak; the wound will enlarge with the tree, and posterity read it in full grown characters. By referring the matter from argument to arms, a new era for politics is struck; a new method of thinking hath arisen. All plans, proposals, &c. prior to the nineteenth of April, i. e. to the commencement of hostilities, are like the almanacs of the last year; which, though proper then are superseded and useless now. Whatever was advanced by the advocates on either side of the question then, terminated in one and the same point. viz. a union with Great Britain: the only difference between the parties was the method of effecting it; the one proposing force, the other friendship; but it hath so far happened that the first hath failed, and the second hath withdrawn her influence. As much hath been said of the advantages of reconciliation which, like an agreeable dream, hath passed away and left us as we were, it is but right, that we should examine the contrary side of the argument, and inquire into some of the many material injuries which these colonies sustain, and always will sustain, by being connected with, and dependent on Great Britain. To examine that connection and dependence, on the principles of nature and common sense, to see what we have to trust to, if separated, and what we are to expect, if dependant. I have heard it asserted by some, that as America hath flourished under her former connection with Great Britain that the same connection is necessary towards her future happiness, and will always have the same effect. Nothing can be more fallacious than this kind of argument. We may as well assert, that because a child has thrived upon milk that it is never to have meat; or that the first twenty years of our lives is to become a precedent for the next twenty. But even this is admitting more than is true, for I answer roundly, that America would have flourished as much, and probably much more, had no European power had any thing to do with her. The commerce, by which she hath enriched herself, are the necessaries of life, and will always have a market while eating is the custom of Europe. But she has protected us, say some. That she has engrossed us is true, and defended the continent at our expense as well as her own is admitted, and she would have defended Turkey from the same motive, viz. the sake of trade and dominion. Alas, we have been long led away by ancient prejudices, and made large sacrifices to superstition. We have boasted the protection of Great Britain, without considering, that her motive was interest not attachment; that she did not protect us from our enemies on our account, but from her enemies on her own account, from those who had no quarrel with us on any other account, and who will always be our enemies on the same account. Let Britain wave her pretensions to the continent, or the continent throw off the dependence, and we should be at peace with France and Spain were they at war with Britain. The miseries of Hanover last war ought to warn us against connections. It has lately been asserted in parliament, that the colonies have no relation to each other but through the parent country, i.e. that Pennsylvania and the Jerseys, and so on for the rest, are sister colonies by the way of England; this is certainly a very roundabout way of proving relationship, but it is the nearest and only true way of proving enemyship, if I may so call it. France and Spain never were, nor perhaps ever will be our enemies as Americans, but as our being the subjects of Great Britain. But Britain is the parent country, say some. Then the more shame upon her conduct. Even brutes do not devour their young, nor savages make war upon their families; wherefore the assertion, if true, turns to her reproach; but it happens not to be true, or only partly so, and the phrase parent or mother country hath been jesuitically adopted by the king and his parasites, with a low papistical design of gaining an unfair bias on the credulous weakness of our minds. Europe, and not England, is the parent country of America. This new world hath been the asylum for the persecuted lovers of civil and religious liberty from every part of Europe. Hither have they fled, not from the tender embraces of the mother, but from the cruelty of the monster; and it is so far true of England, that the same tyranny which drove the first emigrants from home, pursues their descendants still. In this extensive quarter of the globe, we forget the narrow limits of three hundred and sixty miles (the extent of England) and carry our friendship on a larger scale; we claim brotherhood with every European Christian, and triumph in the generosity of the sentiment. It is pleasant to observe by what regular gradations we surmount the force of local prejudice, as we enlarge our acquaintance with the world. A man born in any town in England divided into parishes, will naturally associate most with his fellow parishioners (because their interests in many cases will be common) and distinguish him by the name of neighbour; if he meet him but a few miles from home, he drops the narrow idea of a street, and salutes him by the name of townsman; if he travel out of the county, and meet him in any other, he forgets the minor divisions of street and town, and calls him countryman, i.e. countyman; but if in their foreign excursions they should associate in France or any other part of Europe, their local remembrance would be enlarged into that of Englishmen. And by a just parity of reasoning, all Europeans meeting in America, or any other quarter of the globe, are countrymen; for England, Holland, Germany, or Sweden, when compared with the whole, stand in the same places on the larger scale, which the divisions of street, town, and county do on the smaller ones; distinctions too limited for continental minds. Not one third of the inhabitants, even of this province, are of English descent. Wherefore I reprobate the phrase of parent or mother country applied to England only, as being false, selfish, narrow and ungenerous. But admitting, that we were all of English descent, what does it amount to? Nothing. Britain, being now an open enemy, extinguishes every other name and title: And to say that reconciliation is our duty, is truly farcical. The first king of England, of the present line (William the Conqueror) was a Frenchman, and half the Peers of England are descendants from the same country; wherefore, by the same method of reasoning, England ought to be governed by France. Much hath been said of the united strength of Britain and the colonies, that in conjunction they might bid defiance to the world. But this is mere presumption; the fate of war is uncertain, neither do the expressions mean any thing; for this continent would never suffer itself to be drained of inhabitants to support the British arms in either Asia, Africa, or Europe. Besides, what have we to do with setting the world at defiance? Our plan is commerce, and that, well attended to, will secure us the peace and friendship of all Europe; because, it is the interest of all Europe to have America a free port. Her trade will always be a protection, and her barrenness of gold and silver secure her from invaders. I challenge the warmest advocate for reconciliation, to shew, a single advantage that this continent can reap, by being connected with Great Britain. I repeat the challenge, not a single advantage is derived. Our corn will fetch its price in any market in Europe, and our imported goods must be paid for, buy them where we will. But the injuries and disadvantages we sustain by that connection, are without number; and our duty to mankind at large, as well as to ourselves, instruct us to renounce the alliance: Because, any submission to, or dependence on Great Britain, tends directly to involve this continent in European wars and quarrels; and sets us at variance with nations, who would otherwise seek our friendship, and against whom, we have neither anger nor complaint. As Europe is our market for trade, we ought to form no partial connection with any part of it. It is the true interest of America to steer clear of European contentions, which she never can do, while by her dependence on Britain, she is made the make-weight in the scale of British politics. Europe is too thickly planted with kingdoms to be long at peace, and whenever a war breaks out between England and any foreign power, the trade of America goes to ruin, because of her connection with England. The next war may not turn out like the last, and should it not, the advocates for reconciliation now will be wishing for separation then, because, neutrality in that case, would be a safer convoy than a man of war. Every thing that is right or natural pleads for separation. The blood of the slain, the weeping voice of nature cries, ’TIS TIME TO PART. Even the distance at which the Almighty hath placed England and America, is a strong and natural proof, that the authority of the one, over the other, was never the design of Heaven. The time likewise at which the continent was discovered, adds weight to the argument, and the manner in which it was peopled increases the force of it. The reformation was preceded by the discovery of America, as if the Almighty graciously meant to open a sanctuary to the Persecuted in future years, when home should afford neither friendship nor safety. The authority of Great Britain over this continent, is a form of government, which sooner or later must have an end: And a serious mind can draw no true pleasure by looking forward, under the painful and positive conviction, that what he calls “the present constitution” is merely temporary. As parents, we can have no joy, knowing that this government is not sufficiently lasting to ensure any thing which we may bequeath to posterity: And by a plain method of argument, as we are running the next generation into debt, we ought to do the work of it, otherwise we use them meanly and pitifully. In order to discover the line of our duty rightly, we should take our children in our hand, and fix our station a few years farther into life; that eminence will present a prospect, which a few present fears and prejudices conceal from our sight. Though I would carefully avoid giving unnecessary offense, yet I am inclined to believe, that all those who espouse the doctrine of reconciliation, may be included within the following descriptions. Interested men, who are not to be trusted; weak men, who cannot see; prejudiced men, who will not see; and a certain set of moderate men, who think better of the European world than it deserves; and this last class, by an ill-judged deliberation, will be the cause of more calamities to this continent, than all the other three. It is the good fortune of many to live distant from the scene of sorrow; the evil is not sufficient brought to their doors to make them feel the precariousness with which all American property is possessed. But let our imaginations transport us for a few moments to Boston, that seat of wretchedness will teach us wisdom, and instruct us for ever to renounce a power in whom we can have no trust. The inhabitants of that unfortunate city, who but a few months ago were in ease and affluence, have now no other alternative than to stay and starve, or turn and beg. Endangered by the fire of their friends if they continue within the city, and plundered by the soldiery if they leave it. In their present condition they are prisoners without the hope of redemption, and in a general attack for their relief, they would be exposed to the fury of both armies. Men of passive tempers look somewhat lightly over the offenses of Britain, and, still hoping for the best, are apt to call out, “Come, Come, we shall be friends again, for all this.” But examine the passions and feelings of mankind. Bring the doctrine of reconciliation to the touchstone of nature, and then tell me, whether you can hereafter love, honor, and faithfully serve the power that hath carried fire and sword into your land? If you cannot do all these, then are you only deceiving yourselves, and by your delay bringing ruin upon posterity. Your future connection with Britain, whom you can neither love nor honor will be forced and unnatural, and being formed only on the plan of present convenience, will in a little time fall into a relapse more wretched than the first. But if you say, you can still pass the violations over, then I ask, Hath your house been burnt? Hath your property been destroyed before your face? Are your wife and children destitute of a bed to lie on, or bread to live on? Have you lost a parent or a child by their hands, and yourself the ruined and wretched survivor! If you have not, then are you not a judge of those who have. But if you have, and still can shake hands with the murderers, then are you unworthy of the name of husband, father, friend, or lover, and whatever may be your rank or title in life, you have the heart of a coward, and the spirit of a sycophant. This is not inflaming or exaggerating matters, but trying them by those feelings and affections which nature justifies, and without which, we should be incapable of discharging the social duties of life, or enjoying the felicities of it. I mean not to exhibit horror for the purpose of provoking revenge, but to awaken us from fatal and unmanly slumbers, that we may pursue determinately some fixed object. It is not in the power of Britain or of Europe to conquer America, if she do not conquer herself by delay and timidity. The present winter is worth an age if rightly employed, but if lost or neglected, the whole continent will partake of the misfortune; and there is no punishment which that man will not deserve, be he who, or what, or where he will, that may be the means of sacrificing a season so precious and useful. It is repugnant to reason, to the universal order of things, to all examples from former ages, to suppose, that this continent can longer remain subject to any external power. The most sanguine in Britain does not think so. The utmost stretch of human wisdom cannot, at this time, compass a plan short of separation, which can promise the continent even a year’s security. Reconciliation is and was a fallacious dream. Nature hath deserted the connection, and Art cannot supply her place. For, as Milton wisely expresses, “never can true reconcilement grow, where wounds of deadly hate have pierced so deep.” Every quiet method for peace hath been ineffectual. Our prayers have been rejected with disdain; and only tended to convince us, that nothing flatters vanity, or confirms obstinacy in Kings more than repeated petitioning—and nothing hath contributed more than that very measure to make the kings of Europe absolute: Witness Denmark and Sweden. Wherefore, since nothing but blows will do, for God’s sake, let us come to a final separation, and not leave the next generation to be cutting throats, under the violated unmeaning names of parent and child. To say, they will never attempt it again is idle and visionary, we thought so at the repeal of the Stamp Act, yet a year or two undeceived us; as well may we suppose that nations, which have been once defeated, will never renew the quarrel. As to government matters, it is not in the power of Britain to do this continent justice: The business of it will soon be too weighty, and intricate, to be managed with any tolerable degree of convenience, by a power so distant from us, and so very ignorant of us; for if they cannot conquer us, they cannot govern us. To be always running three or four thousand miles with a tale or a petition, waiting four or five months for an answer, which when obtained requires five or six more to explain it in, will in a few years be looked upon as folly and childishness—There was a time when it was proper, and there is a proper time for it to cease. Small islands not capable of protecting themselves, are the proper objects for kingdoms to take under their care; but there is something very absurd, in supposing a continent to be perpetually governed by an island. In no instance hath nature made the satellite larger than its primary planet, and as England and America, with respect to each other, reverses the common order of nature, it is evident they belong to different systems: England to Europe, America to itself. I am not induced by motives of pride, party, or resentment to espouse the doctrine of separation and independence; I am clearly, positively, and conscientiously persuaded that it is the true interest of this continent to be so; that every thing short of that is mere patchwork, that it can afford no lasting felicity, —that it is leaving the sword to our children, and shrinking back at a time, when, a little more, a little farther, would have rendered this continent the glory of the earth. As Britain hath not manifested the least inclination towards a compromise, we may be assured that no terms can be obtained worthy the acceptance of the continent, or any ways equal to the expense of blood and treasure we have been already put to. The object, contended for, ought always to bear some just proportion to the expense. The removal of North, or the whole detestable junto, is a matter unworthy the millions we have expended. A temporary stoppage of trade, was an inconvenience, which would have sufficiently balanced the repeal of all the acts complained of, had such repeals been obtained; but if the whole continent must take up arms, if every man must be a soldier, it is scarcely worth our while to fight against a contemptible ministry only. Dearly, dearly, do we pay for the repeal of the acts, if that is all we fight for; for in a just estimation, it is as great a folly to pay a Bunker-hill price for law, as for land. As I have always considered the independency of this continent, as an event, which sooner or later must arrive, so from the late rapid progress of the continent to maturity, the event could not be far off. Wherefore, on the breaking out of hostilities, it was not worth while to have disputed a matter, which time would have finally redressed, unless we meant to be in earnest; otherwise, it is like wasting an estate on a suit at law, to regulate the trespasses of a tenant, whose lease is just expiring. No man was a warmer wisher for reconciliation than myself, before the fatal nineteenth of April 1775, but the moment the event of that day was made known, I rejected the hardened, sullen tempered Pharaoh of England for ever; and disdain the wretch, that with the pretended title of FATHER OF HIS PEOPLE can unfeelingly hear of their slaughter, and composedly sleep with their blood upon his soul. But admitting that matters were now made up, what would be the event? I answer, the ruin of the continent. And that for several reasons. First. The powers of governing still remaining in the hands of the king, he will have a negative over the whole legislation of this continent. And as he hath shewn himself such an inveterate enemy to liberty, and discovered such a thirst for arbitrary power; is he, or is he not, a proper man to say to these colonies, “You shall make no laws but what I please.” And is there any inhabitant in America so ignorant as not to know, that according to what is called the present constitution, that this continent can make no laws but what the king gives leave to; and is there any man so unwise, as not to see, that (considering what has happened) he will suffer no law to be made here, but such as suit HIS purpose. We may be as effectually enslaved by the want of laws in America, as by submitting to laws made for us in England. After matters are made up (as it is called) can there be any doubt, but the whole power of the crown will be exerted, to keep this continent as low and humble as possible? Instead of going forward we shall go backward, or be perpetually quarrelling or ridiculously petitioning. —We are already greater than the king wishes us to be, and will he not hereafter endeavour to make us less? To bring the matter to one point. Is the power who is jealous of our prosperity, a proper power to govern us? Whoever says No to this question, is an Independent, for independency means no more, than, whether we shall make our own laws, or whether the king, the greatest enemy this continent hath, or can have, shall tell us “There shall be no laws but such as I like.” But the king you will say has a negative in England; the people there can make no laws without his consent. In point of right and good order, there is something very ridiculous, that a youth of twenty-one (which hath often happened) shall say to several millions of people, older and wiser than himself, I forbid this or that act of yours to be law. But in this place I decline this sort of reply, though I will never cease to expose the absurdity of it, and only answer, that England being the King’s residence, and America not so, makes quite another case. The king’s negative here is ten times more dangerous and fatal than it can be in England, for there he will scarcely refuse his consent to a bill for putting England into as strong a state of defense as possible, and in America he would never suffer such a bill to be passed. America is only a secondary object in the system of British politics, England consults the good of this country, no farther than it answers her own purpose. Wherefore, her own interest leads her to suppress the growth of ours in every case which doth not promote her advantage, or in the least interferes with it. A pretty state we should soon be in under such a second-hand government, considering what has happened! Men do not change from enemies to friends by the alteration of a name: And in order to shew that reconciliation now is a dangerous doctrine, I affirm, that it would be policy in the king at this time, to repeal the acts for the sake of reinstating himself in the government of the provinces; in order, that HE MAY ACCOMPLISH BY CRAFT AND SUBTLETY, IN THE LONG RUN, WHAT HE CANNOT DO BY FORCE AND VIOLENCE IN THE SHORT ONE. Reconciliation and ruin are nearly related. Secondly. That as even the best terms, which we can expect to obtain, can amount to no more than a temporary expedient, or a kind of government by guardianship, which can last no longer than till the colonies come of age, so the general face and state of things, in the interim, will be unsettled and unpromising. Emigrants of property will not choose to come to a country whose form of government hangs but by a thread, and who is every day tottering on the brink of commotion and disturbance; and numbers of the present inhabitants would lay hold of the interval, to dispense of their effects, and quit the continent. But the most powerful of all arguments, is, that nothing but indence, i.e. a continental form of government, can keep the peace of the continent and preserve it inviolate from civil wars. I dread the event of a reconciliation with Britain now, as it is more than probable, that it will be followed by a revolt somewhere or other, the consequences of which may be far more fatal than all the malice of Britain. Thousands are already ruined by British barbarity; (thousands more will probably suffer the same fate). Those men have other feelings than us who have nothing suffered. All they now possess is liberty, what they before enjoyed is sacrificed to its service, and having nothing more to lose, they disdain submission. Besides, the general temper of the colonies, towards a British government, will be like that of a youth, who is nearly out of his time, they will care very little about her. And a government which cannot preserve the peace, is no government at all, and in that case we pay our money for nothing; and pray what is it that Britain can do, whose power will be wholly on paper, should a civil tumult break out the very day after reconciliation! I have heard some men say, many of whom I believe spoke without thinking, that they dreaded an indence, fearing that it would produce civil wars. It is but seldom that our first thoughts are truly correct, and that is the case here; for there are ten times more to dread from a patched up connection than from indence. I make the sufferers’ case my own, and I protest, that were I driven from house and home, my property destroyed, and my circumstances ruined, that as man, sensible of injuries, I could never relish the doctrine of reconciliation, or consider myself bound thereby. The colonies have manifested such a spirit of good order and obedience to continental government, as is sufficient to make every reasonable person easy and happy on that head. No man can assign the least pretence for his fears, on any other grounds, than such as are truly childish and ridiculous, viz. that one colony will be striving for superiority over another. Where there are no distinctions there can be no superiority, perfect equality affords no temptation. The republics of Europe are all (and we may say always) in peace. Holland and Switzerland are without wars, foreign or domestic: Monarchical governments, it is true, are never long at rest; the crown itself is a temptation to enterprising ruffians at home; and that degree of pride and insolence ever attendant on regal authority, swells into a rupture with foreign powers, in instances, where a republican government, by being formed on more natural principles, would negotiate the mistake. If there is any true cause of fear respecting indence, it is because no plan is yet laid down. Men do not see their way out— Wherefore, as an opening into that business, I offer the following hints; at the same time modestly affirming, that I have no other opinion of them myself, than that they may be the means of giving rise to something better. Could the straggling thoughts of individuals be collected, they would frequently form materials for wise and able men to improve into useful matter. LET the assemblies be annual, with a President only. The representation more equal. Their business wholly domestic, and subject to the authority of a Continental Congress. Let each colony be divided into six, eight, or ten, convenient districts, each district to send a proper number of delegates to Congress, so that each colony send at least thirty. The whole number in Congress will be at least 390. Each Congress to sit and to choose a president by the following method. When the delegates are met, let a colony be taken from the whole thirteen colonies by lot, after which, let the whole Congress choose (by ballot) a president from out of the delegates of that province. In the next Congress, let a colony be taken by lot from twelve only, omitting that colony from which the president was taken in the former Congress, and so proceeding on till the whole thirteen shall have had their proper rotation. And in order that nothing may pass into a law but what is satisfactorily just not less than three fifths of the Congress to be called a majority— He that will promote discord, under a government so equally formed as this, would have joined Lucifer in his revolt. But as there is a peculiar delicacy, from whom, or in what manner, this business must first arise, and as it seems most agreeable and consistent, that it should come from some intermediate body between the governed and the governors, that is, between the Congress and the people. Let a CONTINENTAL CONFERENCE be held, in the following manner, and for the following purpose. A committee of twenty-six members of Congress, viz. two for each colony. Two Members from each House of Assembly, or Provincial Convention; and five representatives of the people at large, to be chosen in the capital city or town of each province, for and in behalf of the whole province, by as many qualified voters as shall think proper to attend from all parts of the province for that purpose; or, if more convenient, the representatives may be chosen in two or three of the most populous parts thereof. In this conference, thus assembled, will be united, the two grand principles of business knowledge and power. The members of Congress, Assemblies, or Conventions, by having had experience in national concerns, will be able and useful counsellors, and the whole, being empowered by the people, will have a truly legal authority. The conferring members being met, let their business be to frame a CONTINENTAL CHARTER, or Charter of the United Colonies; (answering to what is called the Magna Carta of England) fixing the number and manner of choosing members of Congress, members of Assembly, with their date of sitting, and drawing the line of business and jurisdiction between them: (Always remembering, that our strength is continental, not provincial:) Securing freedom and property to all men, and above all things, the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; with such other matter as is necessary for a charter to contain. Immediately after which, the said Conference to dissolve, and the bodies which shall be chosen comformable to the said charter, to be the legislators and governors of this continent for the time being: Whose peace and happiness may God preserve, Amen. Should any body of men be hereafter delegated for this or some similar purpose, I offer them the following extracts from that wise observer on governments Dragonetti. “The science” says he “of the politician consists in fixing the true point of happiness and freedom. Those men would deserve the gratitude of ages, who should discover a mode of government that contained the greatest sum of individual happiness, with the least national expense.” But where, says some, is the King of America? I’ll tell you. Friend, he reigns above, and doth not make havoc of mankind like the Royal Brute of Britain. Yet that we may not appear to be defective even in earthly honors, let a day be solemnly set apart for proclaiming the charter; let it be brought forth placed on the divine law, the word of God; let a crown be placed thereon, by which the world may know, that so far as we approve of monarchy, that in America THE LAW IS KING. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be King; and there ought to be no other. But lest any ill use should afterwards arise, let the crown at the conclusion of the ceremony, be demolished, and scattered among the people whose right it is. A government of our own is our natural right: And when a man seriously reflects on the precariousness of human affairs, he will become convinced, that it is infinitely wiser and safer, to form a constitution of our own in a cool deliberate manner, while we have it in our power, than to trust such an interesting event to time and chance. If we omit it now, some Massanello may hereafter arise, who laying hold of popular disquietudes, may collect together the desperate and the discontented, and by assuming to themselves the powers of government, may sweep away the liberties of the continent like a deluge. Should the government of America return again into the hands of Britain, the tottering situation of things will be a temptation for some desperate adventurer to try his fortune; and in such a case, that relief can Britain give? Ere she could hear the news, the fatal business might be done; and ourselves suffering like the wretched Britons under the oppression of the Conqueror. Ye that oppose indence now, ye know not what ye do; ye are opening a door to eternal tyranny, by keeping vacant the seat of government. There are thousands and tens of thousands, who would think it glorious to expel from the continent, that barbarous and hellish power, which hath stirred up the Indians and Negroes to destroy us; the cruelty hath a double guilt, it is dealing brutally by us, and treacherously by them. To talk of friendship with those in whom our reason forbids us to have faith, and our affections wounded through a thousand pores instruct us to detest, is madness and folly. Every day wears out the little remains of kindred between us and them, and can there be any reason to hope, that as the relationship expires, the affection will increase, or that we shall agree better, when we have ten times more and greater concerns to quarrel over than ever? Ye that tell us of harmony and reconciliation, can ye restore to us the time that is past? Can ye give to prostitution its former innocence? Neither can ye reconcile Britain and America. The last cord now is broken, the people of England are presenting addresses against us. There are injuries which nature cannot forgive; she would cease to be nature if she did. As well can the lover forgive the ravisher of his mistress, as the continent forgive the murders of Britain. The Almighty hath implanted in us these unextinguishable feelings for good and wise purposes. They are the guardians of his image in our hearts. They distinguish us from the herd of common animals. The social compact would dissolve, and justice be extirpated the earth, or have only a casual existence were we callous to the touches of affection. The robber, and the murderer, would often escape unpunished, did not the injuries which our tempers sustain, provoke us into justice. O ye that love mankind! Ye that dare oppose, not only the tyranny, but the tyrant, stand forth! Every spot of the old world is over-run with oppression. Freedom hath been hunted round the globe. Asia, and Africa, have long expelled her. —Europe regards her like a stranger, and England hath given her warning to depart. O! receive the fugitive, and prepare in time an asylum for mankind. Of the Present Ability of America, with some Miscellaneous Reflections I have never met with a man, either in England or America, who hath not confessed his opinion that a separation between the countries, would take place one time or other: And there is no instance in which we have shewn less judgement, than in endeavouring to describe, what we call the ripeness or fitness of the Continent for indence. As all men allow the measure, and vary only in their opinion of the time, let us, in order to remove mistakes, take a general survey of things, and endeavour, if possible, to find out the very time. But we need not go far, the inquiry ceases at once, for, the time hath found us. The general concurrence, the glorious union of all things prove the fact. It is not in numbers, but in unity, that our great strength lies; yet our present numbers are sufficient to repel the force of all the world. The Continent hath, at this time, the largest body of armed and disciplined men of any power under Heaven; and is just arrived at that pitch of strength, in which no single colony is able to support itself, and the whole, when united, can accomplish the matter, and either more, or, less than this, might be fatal in its effects. Our land force is already sufficient, and as to naval affairs, we cannot be insensible, that Britain would never suffer an American man of war to be built, while the continent remained in her hands. Wherefore, we should be no forwarder an hundred years hence in that branch, than we are now; but the truth is, we should be less so, because the timber of the country is every day diminishing, and that, which will remain at last, will be far off and difficult to procure. Were the continent crowded with inhabitants, her sufferings under the present circumstances would be intolerable. The more seaport towns we had, the more should we have both to defend and to lose. Our present numbers are so happily proportioned to our wants, that no man need be idle. The diminution of trade affords an army, and the necessities of an army create a new trade. Debts we have none; and whatever we may contract on this account will serve as a glorious memento of our virtue. Can we but leave posterity with a settled form of government, an independent constitution of its own, the purchase at any price will be cheap. But to expend millions for the sake of getting a few vile acts repealed, and routing the present ministry only, is unworthy the charge, and is using posterity with the utmost cruelty; because it is leaving them the great work to do, and a debt upon their backs, from which they derive no advantage. Such a thought is unworthy of a man of honor, and is the true characteristic of a narrow heart and a peddling politician. The debt we may contract doth not deserve our regard, if the work be but accomplished. No nation ought to be without a debt. A national debt is a national bond; and when it bears no interest, is in no case a grievance. Britain is oppressed with a debt of upwards of one hundred and forty millions sterling, for which she pays upwards of four millions interest. And as a compensation for her debt, she has a large navy; America is without a debt, and without a navy; yet for the twentieth part of the English national debt, could have a navy as large again. The navy of England is not worth, at this time, more than three millions and an half sterling. The first and second editions of this pamphlet were published without the following calculations, which are now given as a proof that the above estimation of the navy is just. The charge of building a ship of each rate, and furnishing her with masts, yards, sails and rigging, together with a proportion of eight months boatswain’s and carpenter’s sea-stores, as calculated by Mr. Burchett, Secretary to the navy. And from hence it is easy to sum up the value, or cost rather, of the whole British navy, which in the year 1757, when it was at its greatest glory consisted of the following ships and guns: No country on the globe is so happily situated, or so internally capable of raising a fleet as America. Tar, timber, iron, and cordage are her natural produce. We need go abroad for nothing. Whereas the Dutch, who make large profits by hiring out their ships of war to the Spaniards and Portuguese, are obliged to import most of their materials they use. We ought to view the building a fleet as an article of commerce, it being the natural manufactory of this country. It is the best money we can lay out. A navy when finished is worth more than it cost. And is that nice point in national policy, in which commerce and protection are united. Let us build; if we want them not, we can sell; and by that means replace our paper currency with ready gold and silver. In point of manning a fleet, people in general run into great errors; it is not necessary that one-fourth part should be sailors. The Terrible privateer, Captain Death, stood the hottest engagement of any ship last war, yet had not twenty sailors on board, though her complement of men was upwards of two hundred. A few able and social sailors will soon instruct a sufficient number of active landmen in the common work of a ship. Wherefore, we never can be more capable to begin on maritime matters than now, while our timber is standing, our fisheries blocked up, and our sailors and shipwrights out of employ. Men of war of seventy and eighty guns were built forty years ago in New England, and why not the same now? Ship-building is America’s greatest pride, and in which she will in time excel the whole world. The great empires of the east are mostly inland, and consequently excluded from the possibility of rivalling her. Africa is in a state of barbarism; and no power in Europe hath either such an extent of coast, or such an internal supply of materials. Where nature hath given the one, she has withheld the other; to America only hath she been liberal of both. The vast empire of Russia is almost shut out from the sea: wherefore, her boundless forests, her tar, iron, and cordage are only articles of commerce. In point of safety, ought we to be without a fleet? We are not the little people now, which we were sixty years ago; at that time we might have trusted our property in the streets, or fields rather; and slept securely without locks or bolts to our doors or windows. The case now is altered, and our methods of defense ought to improve with our increase of property. A common pirate, twelve months ago, might have come up the Delaware, and laid the city of Philadelphia under instant contribution, for what sum he pleased; and the same might have happened to other places. Nay, any daring fellow, in a brig of fourteen or sixteen guns might have robbed the whole continent, and carried off half a million of money. These are circumstances which demand our attention, and point out the necessity of naval protection. Some, perhaps, will say, that after we have made it up with Britain, she will protect us. Can we be so unwise as to mean, that she shall keep a navy in our harbours for that purpose? Common sense will tell us, that the power which hath endeavoured to subdue us, is of all others the most improper to defend us. Conquest may be effected under the pretence of friendship; and ourselves after a long and brave resistance, be at last cheated into slavery. And if her ships are not to be admitted into our harbours, I would ask, how is she to protect us? A navy three or four thousand miles off can be of little use, and on sudden emergencies, none at all. Wherefore, if we must hereafter protect ourselves, why not do it for ourselves? The English list of ships of war, is long and formidable, but not a tenth part of them are at any one time fit for service, numbers of them not in being; yet their names are pompously continued in the list, if only a plank be left of the ship: and not a fifth part of such as are fit for service, can be spared on any one station at one time. The East and West Indies, Mediterranean, Africa, and other parts over which Britain extends her claim, make large demands upon her navy. From a mixture of prejudice and inattention, we have contracted a false notion respecting the navy of England, and have talked as if we should have the whole of it to encounter at once, and for that reason, supposed, that we must have one as large; which not being instantly practicable, have been made use of by a set of disguised Tories to discourage our beginning thereon. Nothing can be farther from truth than this; for if America had only a twentieth part of the naval force of Britain, she would be by far an overmatch for her; because, as we neither have, nor claim any foreign dominion, our whole force would be employed on our own coast, where we should, in the long run, have two to one the advantage of those who had three or four thousand miles to sail over, before they could attack us, and the same distance to return in order to refit and recruit. And although Britain, by her fleet, hath a check over our trade to Europe, we have as large a one over her trade to the West Indies, which, by laying in the neighbourhood of the continent, is entirely at its mercy. Some method might be fallen on to keep up a naval force in time of peace, if we should not judge it necessary to support a constant navy. If premiums were to be given to merchants, to build and employ in their service ships mounted with twenty, thirty, forty or fifty guns, (the premiums to be in proportion to the loss of bulk to the merchants) fifty or sixty of those ships, with a few guardships on constant duty, would keep up a sufficient navy, and that without burdening ourselves with the evil so loudly complained of in England, of suffering their fleet, in time of peace to lie rotting in the docks. To unite the sinews of commerce and defense is sound policy; for when our strength and our riches play into each other’s hand, we need fear no external enemy. In almost every article of defense we abound. Hemp flourishes even to rankness, so that we need not want cordage. Our iron is superior to that of other countries. Our small arms equal to any in the world. Cannon we can cast at pleasure. Saltpetre and gunpowder we are every day producing. Our knowledge is hourly improving. Resolution is our inherent character, and courage hath never yet forsaken us. Wherefore, what is it that we want? Why is it that we hesitate? From Britain we can expect nothing but ruin. If she is once admitted to the government of America again, this Continent will not be worth living in. Jealousies will be always arising; insurrections will be constantly happening; and who will go forth to quell them? Who will venture his life to reduce his own countrymen to a foreign obedience? The difference between Pennsylvania and Connecticut, respecting some unlocated lands, shews the insignificance of a British government, and fully proves, that nothing but Continental authority can regulate Continental matters. Another reason why the present time is preferable to all others, is, that the fewer our numbers are, the more land there is yet unoccupied, which instead of being lavished by the king on his worthless dependants, may be hereafter applied, not only to the discharge of the present debt, but to the constant support of government. No nation under heaven hath such an advantage at this. The infant state of the Colonies, as it is called, so far from being against, is an argument in favour of independence. We are sufficiently numerous, and were we more so, we might be less united. It is a matter worthy of observation, that the more a country is peopled, the smaller their armies are. In military numbers, the ancients far exceeded the moderns: and the reason is evident. For trade being the consequence of population, men become too much absorbed thereby to attend to anything else. Commerce diminishes the spirit, both of patriotism and military defence. And history sufficiently informs us, that the bravest achievements were always accomplished in the nonage of a nation. With the increase of commerce, England hath lost its spirit. The city of London, notwithstanding its numbers, submits to continued insults with the patience of a coward. The more men have to lose, the less willing are they to venture. The rich are in general slaves to fear, and submit to courtly power with the trembling duplicity of a Spaniel. Youth is the seed time of good habits, as well in nations as in individuals. It might be difficult, if not impossible, to form the Continent into one government half a century hence. The vast variety of interests, occasioned by an increase of trade and population, would create confusion. Colony would be against colony. Each being able might scorn each other’s assistance: and while the proud and foolish gloried in their little distinctions, the wise would lament, that the union had not been formed before. Wherefore, the present time is the true time for establishing it. The intimacy which is contracted in infancy, and the friendship which is formed in misfortune, are, of all others, the most lasting and unalterable. Our present union is marked with both these characters: we are young and we have been distressed; but our concord hath withstood our troubles, and fixes a memorable area for posterity to glory in. The present time, likewise, is that peculiar time, which never happens to a nation but once, viz. the time of forming itself into a government. Most nations have let slip the opportunity, and by that means have been compelled to receive laws from their conquerors, instead of making laws for themselves. First, they had a king, and then a form of government; whereas, the articles or charter of government, should be formed first, and men delegated to execute them afterward: but from the errors of other nations, let us learn wisdom, and lay hold of the present opportunity —to begin government at the right end. When William the Conqueror subdued England, he gave them law at the point of the sword; and until we consent that the seat of government, in America, be legally and authoritatively occupied, we shall be in danger of having it filled by some fortunate ruffian, who may treat us in the same manner, and then, where will be our freedom? where our property? As to religion, I hold it to be the indispensable duty of all government, to protect all conscientious professors thereof, and I know of no other business which government hath to do therewith, Let a man throw aside that narrowness of soul, that selfishness of principle, which the niggards of all professions are so unwilling to part with, and he will be at delivered of his fears on that head. Suspicion is the companion of mean souls, and the bane of all good society. For myself, I fully and conscientiously believe, that it is the will of the Almighty, that there should be diversity of religious opinions among us: It affords a larger field for our Christian kindness. Were we all of one way of thinking, our religious dispositions would want matter for probation; and on this liberal principle, I look on the various denominations among us, to be like children of the same family, differing only, in what is called their Christian names. In page forty[1], I threw out a few thoughts on the propriety of a Continental Charter, (for I only presume to offer hints, not plans) and in this place, I take the liberty of rementioning the subject, by observing, that a charter is to be understood as a bond of solemn obligation, which the whole enters into, to support the right of every separate part, whether of religion, personal freedom, or property. A firm bargain and a right reckoning make long friends. In a former page I likewise mentioned the necessity of a large and equal representation; and there is no political matter which more deserves our attention. A small number of electors, or a small number of representatives, are equally dangerous. But if the number of the representatives be not only small, but unequal, the danger is increased. As an instance of this, I mention the following; when the Associators petition was before the House of Assembly of Pennsylvania; twenty-eight members only were present, all the Bucks county members, being eight, voted against it, and had seven of the Chester members done the same, this whole province had been governed by two counties only, and this danger it is always exposed to. The unwarrantable stretch likewise, which that house made in their last sitting, to gain an undue authority over the Delegates of that province, ought to warn the people at large, how they trust power out of their own hands. A set of instructions for the Delegates were put together, which in point of sense and business would have dishonoured a schoolboy, and after being approved by a few, a very few without doors, were carried into the House, and there passed in behalf of the whole colony; whereas, did the whole colony know, with what ill-will that House hath entered on some necessary public measures, they would not hesitate a moment to think them unworthy of such a trust. Immediate necessity makes many things convenient, which if continued would grow into oppressions. Expedience and right are different things. When the calamities of America required a consultation, there was no method so ready, or at that time so proper, as to appoint persons from the several Houses of Assembly for that purpose; and the wisdom with which they have proceeded hath preserved this continent from ruin. But as it is more than probable that we shall never be without a CONGRESS, every well wisher to good order, must own, that the mode for choosing members of that body, deserves consideration. And I put it as a question to those, who make a study of mankind, whether representation and election is not too great a power for one and the same body of men to possess? When we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember, that virtue is not hereditary. It is from our enemies that we often gain excellent maxims, and are frequently surprised into reason by their mistakes, Mr. Cornwall (one of the Lords of the Treasury) treated the petition of the New York Assembly with contempt, because that House, he said, consisted but of twenty-six members, which trifling number, he argued, could not with decency be put for the whole. We thank him for his involuntary honesty. TO CONCLUDE, however strange it may appear to some, or however unwilling they may be to think so, matters not, but many strong and striking reasons may be given, to shew, that nothing can settle our affairs so expeditiously as an open and determined declaration for independence. Some of which are, First. It is the custom of nations, when any two are at war, for some other powers, not engaged in the quarrel, to step in as mediators, and bring about the preliminaries of a peace: but while America calls herself the subject of Great Britain, no power, however well disposed she may be, can offer her mediation. Wherefore, in our present state we may quarrel on for ever. Secondly. It is unreasonable to suppose, that France or Spain will give us any kind of assistance, if we mean only to make use of that assistance for the purpose of repairing the breach, and strengthening the connection between Britain and America; because, those powers would be sufferers by the consequences. Thirdly. While we profess ourselves the subjects of Britain, we must, in the eye of foreign nations, be considered as rebels. The precedent is somewhat dangerous to their peace, for men to be in arms under the name of subjects; we, on the spot, can solve the paradox: but to unite resistance and subjection, requires an idea much too refined for common understanding. Fourthly. Were a manifesto to be published, and despatched to foreign courts, setting forth the miseries we have endured, and the peaceable methods we have ineffectually used for redress; declaring, at the same time, that not being able, any longer, to live happily or safely under the cruel disposition of the British court, we had been driven to the necessity of breaking off all connections with her; at the same time, assuring all such courts of our peaceable disposition towards them, and of our desire of entering into trade with them: Such a memorial would produce more good effects to this Continent, than if a ship were freighted with petitions to Britain. Under our present denomination of British subjects, we can neither be received nor heard abroad: The custom of all courts is against us, and will be so, until, by an independence, we take rank with other nations. These proceedings may at first appear strange and difficult; but, like all other steps which we have already passed over, will in a little time become familiar and agreeable; and, until an independence is declared, the Continent will feel itself like a man who continues putting off some unpleasant business from day to day, yet knows it must be done, hates to set about it, wishes it over, and is continually haunted with the thoughts of its necessity. [1] Page 138 in this edition.—Editors. Appendix Since the publication of the first edition of this pamphlet, or rather, on the same day on which it came out, the King’s Speech made its appearance in this city. Had the spirit of prophecy directed the birth of this production, it could not have brought it forth, at a more seasonable juncture, or a more necessary time. The bloody mindedness of the one, shew the necessity of pursuing the doctrine of the other. Men read by way of revenge. And the Speech, instead of terrifying, prepared a way for the manly principles of Independence. Ceremony, and even, silence, from whatever motive they may arise, have a hurtful tendency, when they give the least degree of countenance to base and wicked performances; wherefore, if this maxim be admitted, it naturally follows, that the King’s Speech, as being a piece of finished villainy, deserved, and still deserves, a general execration both by the Congress and the people. Yet as the domestic tranquillity of a nation, depends greatly on the chastity of what may properly be called NATIONAL MATTERS, it is often better, to pass some things over in silent disdain, than to make use of such new methods of dislike, as might introduce the least innovation, on that guardian of our peace and safety. And, perhaps, it is chiefly owing to this prudent delicacy, that the King’s Speech, hath not, before now, suffered a public execution. The Speech if it may be called one, is nothing better than a wilful audacious libel against the truth, the common good, and the existence of mankind; and is a formal and pompous method of offering up human sacrifices to the pride of tyrants. But this general massacre of mankind is one of the privileges, and the certain consequence of Kings; for as nature knows them not, they know not her, and although they are beings of our own creating, they know not us, and are become the gods of their creators. The Speech hath one good quality, which is, that it is not calculated to deceive, neither can we, even if we would, be deceived by it. Brutality and tyranny appear on the face of it. It leaves us at no loss: And every line convinces, even in the moment of reading, that He, who hunts the woods for prey, the naked and untutored Indian, is less a Savage than the King of Britain. Sir John Dalrymple, the putative father of a whining Jesuitical piece, fallaciously called, “The Address of the people of England to the inhabitants of AMERICA,” hath, perhaps, from a vain supposition, that the people here were to be frightened at the pomp and description of a king, given, (though very unwisely on his part) the real character of the present one: “But” says this writer, “if you are inclined to pay compliments to an administration, which we do not complain of,” (meaning the Marquis of Rockingham’s at the repeal of the Stamp Act) “it is very unfair in you to withhold them from that prince by whose NOD ALONE they were permitted to do any thing.” This is Toryism with a witness! Here is idolatry even without a mask: And he who can calmly hear, and digest such doctrine, hath forfeited his claim to rationality—an apostate from the order of manhood; and ought to be considered—as one, who hath not only given up the proper dignity of man, but sunk himself beneath the rank of animals, and contemptibly crawl through the world like a worm. However, it matters very little now, what the king of England either says or does; he hath wickedly broken through every moral and human obligation, trampled nature and conscience beneath his feet; and by a steady and constitutional spirit of insolence and cruelty, procured for himself an universal hatred. It is now the interest of America to provide for herself. She hath already a large and young family, whom it is more her duty to take care of, than to be granting away her property, to support a power who is become a reproach to the names of men and Christians—YE, whose office it is to watch over the morals of a nation, of whatsoever sect or denomination ye are of, as well as ye, who, are more immediately the guardians of the public liberty, if ye wish to preserve your native country uncontaminated by European corruption, ye must in secret wish a separation—But leaving the moral part to private reflection, I shall chiefly confine my farther remarks to the following heads. First. That it is the interest of America to be separated from Britain. Secondly. Which is the easiest and most practicable plan, RECONCILIATION OR INDEPENDENCE? With some occasional remarks. In support of the first, I could, if I judged it proper, produce the opinion of some of the ablest and most experienced men on this continent; and whose sentiments, on that head, are not yet publicly known. It is in reality a self-evident position: For no nation in a state of foreign dependence, limited in its commerce, and cramped and fettered in its legislative powers, can ever arrive at any material eminence. America doth not yet know what opulence is; and although the progress which she hath made stands unparalleled in the history of other nations, it is but childhood, compared with what she would be capable of arriving at, had she, as she ought to have, the legislative powers in her own hands. England is, at this time, proudly coveting what would do her no good, were she to accomplish it; and the Continent hesitating on a matter, which will be her final ruin if neglected. It is the commerce and not the conquest of America, by which England is to be benefited, and that would in a great measure continue, were the countries as Independent of each other as France and Spain; because in many articles, neither can go to a better market. But it is the dependence of this country of Britain or any other, which is now the main and only object worthy of contention, and which, like all other truths discovered by necessity, will appear clearer and stronger every day. First. Because it will come to that one time or other. Secondly. Because the longer it is delayed the harder it will be to accomplish. I have frequently amused myself both in public and private companies, with silently remarking the specious errors of those who speak without reflecting. And among the many which I have heard, the following seems the most general, viz. that had this rupture happened forty or fifty years hence, instead of now, the Continent would have been more able to have shaken off the dependence. To which I reply, that our military ability, at this time, arises from the experience gained in the last war, and which in forty or fifty years time, would have been totally extinct. The Continent, would not, by that time, have had a General, or even a military officer left; and we, or those who may succeed us, would have been as ignorant of martial matters as the ancient Indians: And this single position, closely attended to, will unanswerably prove, that the present time is preferable to all others: The argument turns thus—at the conclusion of the last war, we had experience, but wanted numbers; and forty or fifty years hence, we should have numbers, without experience; wherefore, the proper point of time, must be some particular point between the two extremes, in which a sufficiency of the former remains, and a proper increase of the latter is obtained: And that point of time is the present time. The reader will pardon this digression, as it does not properly come under the head I first set out with, and to which I again return by the following position, viz. Should affairs be patched up with Britain, and she to remain the governing and sovereign power of America, (which, as matters are now circumstanced, is giving up the point entirely) we shall deprive ourselves of the very means of sinking the debt we have or may contract. The value of the back lands which some of the provinces are clandestinely deprived of, by the unjust extension of the limits of Canada, valued only at five pounds sterling per hundred acres, amount to upwards of twenty-five millions, Pennsylvania currency; and the quit-rents at one penny sterling per acre, to two millions yearly. It is by the sale of those lands that the debt may be sunk, without burthen to any, and the quit-rent reserved thereon, will always lessen, and in time, will wholly support the yearly expence of government. It matters not how long the debt is in paying, so that the lands when sold be applied to the discharge of it, and for the execution of which, the Congress for the time being, will be the continental trustees. I proceed now to the second head, viz. Which is the easiest and most practicable plan, RECONCILIATION or INDEPENDENCE; With some occasional remarks. He who takes nature for his guide is not easily beaten out of his argument, and on that ground, I answer generally—That INDEPENDENCE being a SINGLE SIMPLE LINE, contained within ourselves; and reconciliation, a matter exceedingly perplexed and complicated, and in which, a treacherous capricious court is to interfere, gives the answer without a doubt. The present state of America is truly alarming to every man who is capable of reflexion. Without law, without government, without any other mode of power than what is founded on, and granted by courtesy. Held together by an unexampled concurrence of sentiment, which is nevertheless subject to change, and which every secret enemy is endeavouring to dissolve. Our present condition, is, Legislation without law; wisdom without a plan; a constitution without a name; and, what is strangely astonishing, perfect Independence contending for Dependence. The instance is without a precedent; the case never existed before; and who can tell what may be the event? The property of no man is secure in the present unbraced system of things. The mind of the multitude is left at random, and feeling no fixed object before them, they pursue such as fancy or opinion starts. Nothing is criminal; there is no such thing as treason; wherefore, every one thinks himself at liberty to act as he pleases. The Tories dared not to have assembled offensively, had they known that their lives, by that act were forfeited to the laws of the state. A line of distinction should be drawn, between English soldiers taken in battle, and inhabitants of America taken in arms. The first are prisoners, but the latter traitors. The one forfeits his liberty, the other his head. Notwithstanding our wisdom, there is a visible feebleness in some of our proceedings which gives encouragement to dissensions. The Continental belt is too loosely buckled. And if something is not done in time, it will be too late to do any thing, and we shall fall into a state, in which, neither reconciliation nor independence will be practicable. The king and his worthless adherents are got at their old game of dividing the Continent, and there are not wanting among us, Printers, who will be busy in spreading specious falsehoods. The artful and hypocritical letter which appeared a few months ago in two of the New York papers, and likewise in two others, is an evidence that there are men who want either judgment or honesty. It is easy getting into holes and corners and talking of reconciliation: But do such men seriously consider, how difficult the task is, and how dangerous it may prove, should the Continent divide thereon. Do they take within their view, all the various orders of men whose situation and circumstances, as well as their own, are to be considered therein. Do they put themselves in the place of the sufferer whose all is already gone, and of the soldier, who hath quitted all for the defence of his country. If their ill-judged moderation be suited to their own private situations only, regardless of others, the event will convince them, that “they are reckoning without their Host.” Put us, says some, on the footing we were on in sixty-three: To which I answer, the request is not now in the power of Britain to comply with, neither will she propose it; but if it were, and even should be granted, I ask, as a reasonable question, By what means is such a corrupt and faithless court to be kept to its engagements? Another parliament, nay, even the present, may hereafter repeal the obligation, on the pretense of its being violently obtained, or unwisely granted; and in that case, Where is our redress?—No going to law with nations; cannon are the barristers of crowns; and the sword, not of justice, but of war, decides the suit. To be on the footing of sixty-three, it is not sufficient, that the laws only be put on the same state, but, that our circumstances, likewise, be put on the same state; Our burnt and destroyed towns repaired or built up, our private losses made good, our public debts (contracted for defence) discharged; otherwise, we shall be millions worse than we were at that enviable period. Such a request, had it been complied with a year ago, would have won the heart and soul of the Continent—but now it is too late, “The Rubicon is passed.” Besides, the taking up arms, merely to enforce the repeal of a pecuniary law, seems as unwarrantable by the divine law, and as repugnant to human feelings, as the taking up arms to enforce obedience thereto. The object, on either side, doth not justify the ways and the means; for the lives of men are too valuable to be cast away on such trifles. It is the violence which is done and threatened to our persons; the destruction of our property by an armed force; the invasion of our country by fire and sword, which conscientiously qualifies the use of arms: And the instant, in which such a mode of defence became necessary, all subjection to Britain ought to have ceased; and the independency of America, should have been considered, as dating its aera from, and published by, the first musket that was fired against her. This line is a line of consistency; neither drawn by caprice, nor extended by ambition; but produced by a chain of events, of which the colonies were not the authors. I shall conclude these remarks with the following timely and well intended hints. We ought to reflect, that there are three different ways by which an independency may hereafter be effected; and that one of those three, will one day or other, be the fate of America, viz. By the legal voice of the people in Congress; by a military power; or by a mob: It may not always happen that our soldiers are citizens, and the multitude a body of reasonable men; virtue, as I have already remarked, is not hereditary, neither is it perpetual. Should an independency be brought about by the first of those means, we have every opportunity and every encouragement before us, to form the noblest, purest constitution on the face of the earth. We have it in our power to begin the world over again. A situation, similar to the present, hath not happened since the days of Noah until now. The birthday of a new world is at hand, and a race of men, perhaps as numerous as all Europe contains, are to receive their portion of freedom from the event of a few months. The Reflexion is awful—and in this point of view, How trifling, how ridiculous, do the little, paltry cavillings, of a few weak or interested men appear, when weighed against the business of a world. Should we neglect the present favourable and inviting period, and an Independence be hereafter effected by any other means, we must charge the consequence to ourselves, or to those rather, whose narrow and prejudiced souls, are habitually opposing the measure, without either inquiring or reflecting. There are reasons to be given in support of Independence, which men should rather privately think of, than be publicly told of. We ought not now to be debating whether we shall be Independent or not, but, anxious to accomplish it on a firm, secure, and honorable basis, and uneasy rather that it is not yet began upon. Every day convinces us of its necessity. Even the Tories (if such beings yet remain among us) should, of all men, be the most solicitous to promote it; for, as the appointment of committees at first, protected them from popular rage, so, a wise and well established form of government, will be the only certain means of continuing it securely to them. wherefore, if they have not virtue enough to be WHIGS, they ought to have prudence enough to wish for Independence. In short, Independence is the only BOND that can tie and keep us together. We shall then see our object, and our ears will be legally shut against the schemes of an intriguing, as well as a cruel enemy. We shall then too, be on a proper footing, to treat with Britain; for there is reason to conclude, that the pride of that court, will be less hurt by treating with the American states for terms of peace, than with those, whom she denominates, “rebellious subjects,” for terms of accommodation. It is our delaying it that encourages her to hope for conquest, and our backwardness tends only to prolong the war. As we have, without any good effect therefrom, withheld our trade to obtain a redress of our grievances, let us now try the alternative, by independently redressing them ourselves, and then offering to open the trade. The mercantile and reasonable part in England, will be still with us; because, peace with trade, is preferable to war without it. And if this offer be not accepted, other courts may be applied to. On these grounds I rest the matter. And as no offer hath yet been made to refute the doctrine contained in the former editions of this pamphlet, it is a negative proof, that either the doctrine cannot be refuted, or, that the party in favour of it are too numerous to be opposed. WHEREFORE, instead of gazing at each other with suspicious or doubtful curiosity; let each of us, hold out to his neighbour the hearty hand of friendship, and unite in drawing a line, which, like an act of oblivion shall bury in forgetfulness every former dissension. Let the names of Whig and Tory be extinct; and let none other be heard among us, than those of a good citizen, an open and resolute friend, and a virtuous supporter of the RIGHTS of MANKIND and of the free and independent states of AMERICA. To the Representatives of the Religious Society of the People called Quakers, or to so many of them as were concerned in publishing the late piece, entitled “The Ancient Testimony and Principles of the People called Quakers renewed, with Respect to the king and Government, and Touching the Commotions now prevailing in these and other parts of America addressed to the people in general.” The Writer of this, is one of those few, who never dishonours religion either by ridiculing, or cavilling at any denomination whatsoever. To God, and not to man, are all men accountable on the score of religion. Wherefore, this epistle is not so properly addressed to you as a religious, but as a political body, dabbling in matters, which the professed Quietude of your Principles instructs you not to meddle with. As you have, without a proper authority for so doing, put yourselves in the place of the whole body of the Quakers, so, the writer of this, in order to be on an equal rank with yourselves, is under the necessity, of putting himself in the place of all those, who, approve the very writings and principles, against which,your testimony is directed: And he hath chosen this singular situation, in order that you might discover in him that presumption of character which you cannot see in yourselves. For neither he nor you can have any claim or title to political representation. When men have departed from the right way, it is no wonder that they stumble and fall. And it is evident from the manner in which ye have managed your testimony, that politics, (as a religious body of men) is not your proper Walk; for however well adapted it might appear to you, it is, nevertheless, a jumble of good and bad put unwisely together, and the conclusion drawn therefrom, both unnatural and unjust. The two first pages, (and the whole doth not make four) we give you credit for, and expect the same civility from you, because the love and desire of peace is not confined to Quakerism, it is the natural, as well the religious wish of all denominations of men. And on this ground, as men labouring to establish an Independent Constitution of our own, do we exceed all others in our hope, end, and aim. Our plan is peace for ever. We are tired of contention with Britain, and can see no real end to it but in a final separation. We act consistently, because for the sake of introducing an endless and uninterrupted peace, do we bear the evils and burthens of the present day. We are endeavoring, and will steadily continue to endeavour, to separate and dissolve a connection which hath already filled our land with blood; and which, while the name of it remains, will be the fatal cause of future mischiefs to both countries. We fight neither for revenge nor conquest; neither from pride nor passion; we are not insulting the world with our fleets and armies, nor ravaging the globe for plunder. Beneath the shade of our own vines are we attacked; in our own houses, and on our own lands, is the violence committed against us. We view our enemies in the character of Highwaymen and Housebreakers, and having no defence for ourselves in the civil law, are obliged to punish them by the military one, and apply the sword, in the very case, where you have before now, applied the halter. — Perhaps we feel for the ruined and insulted sufferers in all and every part of the continent, and with a degree of tenderness which hath not yet made its way into some of your bosoms. But be ye sure that ye mistake not the cause and ground of your Testimony. Call not coldness of soul, religion; nor put the Bigot in the place of the Christian. O ye partial ministers of your own acknowledged principles. If the bearing arms be sinful, the first going to war must be more so, by all the difference between wilful attack and unavoidable defence. Wherefore, if ye really preach from conscience, and mean not to make a political hobby-horse of your religion, convince the world thereof, by proclaiming your doctrine to our enemies, for they likewise bear ARMS. Give us proof of your sincerity by publishing it at St. James’s, to the commanders in chief at Boston, to the Admirals and Captains who are piratically ravaging our coasts, and to all the murdering miscreants who are acting in authority under HIM whom ye profess to serve. Had ye the honest soul of Barclay ye would preach repentance to your king; Ye would tell the Royal Wretch his sins, and warn him of eternal ruin. Ye would not spend your partial invectives against the injured and the insulted only, but like faithful ministers, would cry aloud and spare none. Say not that ye are persecuted, neither endeavour to make us the authors of that reproach, which, ye are bringing upon yourselves; for we testify unto all men, that we do not complain against you because ye are Quakers, but because ye pretend to be and are not Quakers. Alas! it seems by the particular tendency of some part of your testimony, and other parts of your conduct, as if, all sin was reduced to, and comprehended in the act of bearing arms, and that by the people only. Ye appear to us, to have mistaken party for conscience; because, the general tenor of your actions wants uniformity: And it is exceedingly difficult to us to give credit to many of your pretended scruples; because, we see them made by the same men, who, in the very instant that they are exclaiming against the mammon of this world, are nevertheless, hunting after it with a step as steady as Time, and an appetite as keen as Death. The quotation which ye have made from Proverbs, in the third page of your testimony, that, “when a man’s ways please the Lord, he maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him”; is very unwisely chosen on your part; because, it amounts to a proof, that the king’s ways (whom ye are desirous of supporting) do not please the Lord, otherwise, his reign would be in peace. I now proceed to the latter part of your testimony, and that, for which all the foregoing seems only an introduction, viz. “It hath ever been our judgment and principle, since we were called to profess the light of Christ Jesus, manifested in our consciences unto this day, that the setting up and putting down kings and governments, is God’s peculiar prerogative; for causes best known to himself: And that it is not our business to have any hand or contrivance therein; nor to be busy bodies above our station, much less to plot and contrive the ruin, or overturn any of them, but to pray for the king, and safety of our nation, and good of all men—That we may live a peaceable and quiet life, in all godliness and honesty; Under the government which god is pleased to set over us”—If these are really your principles why do ye not abide by them? Why do ye not leave that, which ye call God’s Work, to be managed by himself? These very principles instruct you to wait with patience and humility, for the event of all public measures, and to receive that event as the divine will towards you. Wherefore, what occasion is there for your political testimony if you fully believe what it contains? And the very publishing it proves, that either, ye do not believe what ye profess, or have not virtue enough to practise what ye believe. The principles of Quakerism have a direct tendency to make a man the quiet and inoffensive subject of any, and every government which is set over him. And if the setting up and putting down of kings and governments is God’s peculiar prerogative, he most certainly will not be robbed thereof by us: wherefore, the principle itself leads you to approve of every thing, which ever happened, or may happen to kings as being his work. OLIVER CROMWELL thanks you. CHARLES, then, died not by the hands of man; and should the present Proud Imitator of him, come to the same untimely end, the writers and publishers of the Testimony, are bound, by the doctrine it contains, to applaud the fact. Kings are not taken away by miracles, neither are changes in governments brought about by any other means than such as are common and human; and such as we are now using. Even the dispersion of the Jews, though foretold by our Saviour, was effected by arms. Wherefore, as ye refuse to be the means on one side, ye ought not to be meddlers on the other; but to wait the issue in silence; and unless ye can produce divine authority, to prove, that the Almighty who hath created and placed this new world, at the greatest distance it could possibly stand, east and west, from every part of the old, doth, nevertheless, disapprove of its being independent of the corrupt and abandoned court of Britain, unless I say, ye can shew this, how can ye on the ground of your principles, justify the exciting and stirring up the people “firmly to unite in the abhorrence of all such writings, and measures, as evidence a desire and design to break off the happy connection we have hitherto enjoyed, with the kingdom of Great Britain, and our just and necessary subordination to the king, and those who are lawfully placed in authority under him.” What a slap of the face is here! the men, who in the very paragraph before, have quietly and passively resigned up the ordering, altering, and disposal of kings and governments, into the hands of God, are now, recalling their principles, and putting in for a share of the business. Is it possible, that the conclusion, which is here justly quoted, can any ways follow from the doctrine laid down? The inconsistency is too glaring not to be seen; the absurdity too great not to be laughed at; and such as could only have been made by those, whose understandings were darkened by the narrow and crabby spirit of a despairing political party; for ye are not to be considered as the whole body of the Quakers but only as a factional and fractional part thereof. Here ends the examination of your testimony; (which I call upon no man to abhor, as ye have done, but only to read and judge of fairly;) to which I subjoin the following remark; “That the setting up and putting down of kings,” most certainly mean, the making him a king, who is yet not so, and the making him no king who is already one. And pray what hath this to do in the present case? We neither mean to set up nor to put down, neither to make nor to unmake, but to have nothing to do with them. Wherefore, your testimony in whatever light it is viewed serves only to dishonor your judgement, and for many other reasons had better have been let alone than published. First. Because it tends to the decrease and reproach of all religion whatever, and is of the utmost danger to society, to make it a party in political disputes. Secondly. Because it exhibits a body of men, numbers of whom disavow the publishing political testimonies, as being concerned therein and approvers thereof. Thirdly. Because it hath a tendency to undo that continental harmony and friendship which yourselves by your late liberal and charitable donations hath lent a hand to establish; and the preservation of which, is of the utmost consequence to us all. And here without anger or resentment, I bid you farewell. Sincerely wishing, that as men and Christians, ye may always fully and uninterruptedly enjoy every civil and religious right; and be, in your turn, the means of securing it to others; but that the example which ye have unwisely set, of mingling religion with politics, may be disavowed and reprobated by every inhabitant of America. Agrarian Justice ■ Author's English Preface ■ Agrarian Justice ■ Means by which the Fund is to be Created ■ Means for Carrying the Proposed Plan into Execution, and to Render it at the Same Time Conducive to the Public Interest Author's English Preface The following little piece was written in the winter of 1795 and ’96; and, as I had not determined whether to publish it during the present war, or to wait till the commencement of a peace, it has lain by me, without alteration or addition, from the time it was written. What has determined me to publish it now is, a sermon preached by Watson, Bishop of Llandaff. Some of my readers will recollect, that this Bishop wrote a Book entitled An Apology for the Bible, in answer to my second part of The Age of Reason. I procured a copy of his Book, and he may depend upon hearing from me on that subject. At the end of the Bishop’s Book is a List of the works he has written. Among which is the sermon alluded to; it is entitled: “The Wisdom and Goodness of God, in having made both Rich and Poor; with an Appendix, containing Reflections on the Present State of England and France.” The error contained in this sermon determined me to publish my Agrarian Justice. It is wrong to say God made rich and poor; he made only male and female; and he gave them the earth for their inheritance... Instead of preaching to encourage one part of mankind in insolence... it would be better that priests employed their time to render the general condition of man less miserable than it is. Practical religion consists in doing good: and the only way of serving God is that of endeavouring to make His creation happy. All preaching that has not this for its object is nonsense and hypocracy. THOMAS PAINE Agrarian Justice To preserve the benefits of what is called civilized life, and to remedy at the same time the evil which it has produced, ought to be considered as one of the first objects of reformed legislation. Whether that state that is proudly, perhaps erroneously, called civilization, has most promoted or most injured the general happiness of man, is a question that may be strongly contested. On one side, the spectator is dazzled by splendid appearances; on the other, he is shocked by extremes of wretchedness; both of which it has erected. The most affluent and the most miserable of the human race are to be found in the countries that are called civilized. To understand what the state of society ought to be, it is necessary to have some idea of the natural and primitive state of man; such as it is at this day among the Indians of North America. There is not, in that state, any of those spectacles of human misery which poverty and want present to our eyes in all the towns and streets in Europe. Poverty, therefore, is a thing created by that which is called civilized life. It exists not in the natural state. On the other hand, the natural state is without those advantages which flow from agriculture, arts, science and manufactures. The life of an Indian is a continual holiday, compared with the poor of Europe; and, on the other hand it appears to be abject when compared to the rich. Civilization, therefore, or that which is so called, has operated two ways: to make one part of society more affluent, and the other more wretched, than would have been the lot of either in a natural state. It is always possible to go from the natural to the civilized state, but it is never possible to go from the civilized to the natural state. The reason is that man in a natural state, subsisting by hunting, requires ten times the quantity of land to range over to procure himself sustenance, than would support him in a civilized state, where the earth is cultivated. When, therefore, a country becomes populous by the additional aids of cultivation, art and science, there is a necessity of preserving things in that state; because without it there cannot be sustenance for more, perhaps, than a tenth part of its inhabitants. The thing, therefore, now to be done is to remedy the evils and preserve the benefits that have arisen to society by passing from the natural to that which is called the civilized state. In taking the matter upon this ground, the first principle of civilization ought to have been, and ought still to be, that the condition of every person born into the world, after a state of civilization commences, ought not to be worse than if he had been born before that period. But the fact is that the condition of millions, in every country in Europe, is far worse than if they had been born before civilization began, or had been born among the Indians of North America at the present day. I will shew how this fact has happened. It is a position not to be controverted that the earth, in its natural uncultivated state was, and ever would have continued to be, the common property of the human race. In that state every man would have been born to property. He would have been a joint life proprietor with the rest in the property of the soil, and in all its natural productions, vegetable and animal. But the earth in its natural state, as before said, is capable of supporting but a small number of inhabitants compared with what it is capable of doing in a cultivated state. And as it is impossible to separate the improvement made by cultivation from the earth itself, upon which that improvement is made, the idea of landed property arose from that inseparable connection; but it is nevertheless true, that it is the value of the improvement only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor, therefore, of cultivated land, owes to the community a ground-rent (for I know of no better term to express the idea) for the land which he holds; and it is from this ground-rent that the fund proposed in this plan is to issue. It is deducible, as well from the nature of the thing as from all the histories transmitted to us, that the idea of landed property commenced with cultivation, and that there was no such thing as landed property before that time. It could not exist in the first state of man, that of hunters. It did not exist in the second state, that of shepherds: neither Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, nor Job, so far as the history of the Bible may be credited in probable things, were owners of land. Their property consisted, as is always enumerated in flocks and herds, and they travelled with them from place to place. The frequent contentions at that time, about the use of a well in the dry country of Arabia, where those people lived, also shew that there was no landed property. It was not admitted that land could be claimed as property. There could be no such thing as landed property originally. Man did not make the earth, and, though he had a natural right to occupy it, he had no right to locate as his property in perpetuity any part of it; neither did the Creator of the earth open a land-office, from whence the first title-deeds should issue. Whence then, arose the idea of landed property? I answer as before, that when cultivation began the idea of landed property began with it, from the impossibility of separating the improvement made by cultivation from the earth itself, upon which that improvement was made. The value of the improvement so far exceeded the value of the natural earth, at that time, as to absorb it; till, in the end, the common right of all became confounded into the cultivated right of the individual. But there are, nevertheless, distinct species of rights, and will continue to be so long as the earth endures. It is only by tracing things to their origin that we can gain rightful ideas of them, and it is by gaining such ideas that we discover the boundary that divides right from wrong, and teaches every man to know his own. I have entitled this tract “Agrarian Justice” to distinguish it from “Agrarian Law”. Nothing could be more unjust than agrarian law in a country improved by cultivation; for though every man, as an inhabitant of the earth, is a joint proprietor of it in its natural state, it does not follow that he is a joint proprietor of cultivated earth. The additional value made by cultivation, after the system was admitted, became the property of those who did it, or who inherited it from them, or who purchased it. It had originally no owner. Whilt, therefore, I advocate the right, and interest myself in the hard case of all those who have been thrown out of their natural inheritance by the introduction of the system of landed property, I equally defend the right of the possessor to the part which is his. Cultivation is at least one of the greatest natural improvements ever made by human invention. It has given to created earth a tenfold value. But the landed monopoly that began with it has produced the greatest evil. It has dispossessed more than half the inhabitants of every nation of their natural inheritance, without providing for them, as ought to have been done, an indemnification for that loss, and has thereby created a species of poverty and wretchedness that did not exist before. In advocating the case of the persons thus dispossessed, it is a right, and not a charity, that I am pleading for. But it is that kind of right which, being neglected at first, could not be brought forward afterwards till heaven had opened the way by a revolution in the system of government. Let us then do honour to revolutions by justice, and give currency to their principles by blessings. Having thus in a few words, opened the merits of the case, I shall now proceed to the plan I have to propose, which is, To create a national fund, out of which there shall be paid to every person, when arrived at the age of twenty-one years, the sum of fifteen pounds sterling, as a compensation in part, for the loss of his or her natural inheritance, by the introduction of the system of landed property: And also, the sum of ten pounds per annum, during life, to every person now living, of the age of fifty years, and to all others as they shall arrive at that age. Means by which the Fund is to be Created I have already established the principle, namely, that the earth, in its natural uncultivated state was, and ever would have continued to be, the common property of the human race; that in that state, every person would have been born to property; and that the system of landed property, by its inseparable connection with cultivation, and with what is called civilized life, has absorbed the property of all those whom it dispossessed, without providing, as ought to have been done, an indemnification for that loss. The fault, however, is not in the present possessors. No complaint is intended, or ought to be alleged against them, unless they adopt the crime by opposing justice. The fault is in the system, and it has stolen imperceptibly upon the world, aided afterwards by the agrarian law of the sword. But the fault can be made to reform itself by successive generations; and without diminishing or deranging the property of any of the present possessors, the operation of the fund can yet commence, and be in full activity, the first year of its establishment, or soon after, as I shall show. It is proposed that the payments, as already stated, be made to every person, rich or poor. It is best to make it so, to prevent invidious distinctions. It is also right it should be so, because it is in lieu of the natural inheritance, which, as a right, belongs to every man, over and above the property he may have created, or inherited from those who did. Such persons as do not choose to receive it can throw it into the common fund. Taking it then for granted that no person ought to be in a worse condition when born under what is called a state of civilization, than he would have been had he been born in a state of nature, and that civilization ought to have made, and ought still to make, provision for that purpose, it can only be done by subtracting from property a portion equal in value to the natural inheritance it has absorbed. Various methods may be proposed for this purpose, but that which appears to be the best (not only because it will operate without deranging any present possessors, or without interfering with the collection of taxes or emprunts necessary for the purposes of government and the Revolution, but because it will be the least troublesome and the most effectual, and also because the subtraction will be made at a time that best admits it) is at the moment that property is passing by the death of one person to the possession of another. In this case, the bequeather gives nothing: the receiver pays nothing. The only matter to him is that the monopoly of natural inheritance, to which there never was a right, begins to cease in his person. A generous man would not wish it to continue, and a just man will rejoice to see it abolished. My state of health prevents my making sufficient inquiries with respect to the doctrine of probabilities, whereon to found calculations with such degrees of certainty as they are capable of. What, therefore, I offer on this head is more the result of observation and reflection than of received information; but I believe it will be found to agree sufficiently with fact. In the first place, taking twenty-one years as the epoch of maturity, all the property of a nation, real and personal, is always in the possession of persons above that age. It is then necessary to know, as a datum of calculation, the average of years, which persons above that age will live. I take this average to be about thirty years, for though many persons will live forty, fifty, or sixty years after the age of twenty-one years, others will die much sooner, and some in every year of that time. Taking, then, thirty years as the average of time, it will give, without any material variation one way or other, the average of time in which the whole property or capital of a nation, or a sum equal thereto, will have passed through one entire revolution in descent, that is, will have gone by deaths to new possessors; for though, in many instances, some parts of this capital will remain forty, fifty, or sixty years in the possession of one person, other parts will have revolved two or three times before those thirty years expire, which will bring it to that average; for were one half the capital of a nation to revolve twice in thirty years, it would produce the same fund as if the whole revolved once. Taking, then, thirty years as the average of time in which the whole capital of a nation, or a sum equal thereto, will revolve once, the thirtieth part thereof will be the sum that will revolve every year, that is, will go by deaths to new possessors; and this last sum being thus known, and the ratio per cent to be subtracted from it determined, it will give the annual amount or income of the proposed fund, to be applied as already mentioned. In looking over the discourse of the English minister, Pitt, in his opening of what is called in England the budget, (the scheme of finance for the year 1796,) I find an estimate of the national capital of that country. As this estimate of a national capital is prepared ready to my hand, I take it as a datum to act upon. When a calculation is made upon the known capital of any nation, combined with its population, it will serve as a scale for any other nation, in proportion as its capital and population be more or less. I am the more disposed to take this estimate of Mr. Pitt, for the purpose of showing to that minister, upon his own calculation, how much better money may be employed than in wasting it, as he has done, on the wild project of setting up Bourbon kings. What, in the name of heaven, are Bourbon kings to the people of England? It is better that the people have bread. Mr. Pitt states the national capital of England, real and personal, to be one thousand three hundred millions sterling, which is about one-fourth part of the national capital of France, including Belgia. The event of the last harvest in each country proves that the soil of France is more productive than that of England, and that it can better support twenty-four or twenty-five millions of inhabitants than that of England can seven or seven and a half millions. The thirtieth part of this capital of￡1,300,000,000 is￡43,333,333 which is the part that will revolve every year by deaths in that country to new possessors; and the sum that will annually revolve in France in the proportion of four to one, will be about one hundred and seventy-three millions sterling. From this sum of￡43,333,333 annually revolving, is to be subtracted the value of the natural inheritance absorbed in it, which, perhaps, in fair justice, cannot be taken at less, and ought not to be taken for more, than a tenth part. It will always happen that of the property thus revolving by deaths every year a part will descend in a direct line to sons and daughters, and the other part collaterally, and the proportion will be found to be about three to one; that is, about thirty millions of the above sum will descend to direct heirs, and the remaining sum of￡13,333,333 to more distant relations, and in part to strangers. Considering, then, that man is always related to society, that relationship will become comparatively greater in proportion as the next of kin is more distant, it is therefore consistent with civilization to say that where there are no direct heirs society shall be heir to a part over and above the tenth part due to society. If this additional part be from five to ten or twelve per cent, in proportion as the next of kin be nearer or more remote, so as to average with the escheats that may fall, which ought always to go to society and not to the government (an addition of ten per cent more), the produce from the annual sum of￡43,333,333 will be: From ￡30,000,000 at ten per cent ￡3,000,000 From ￡13,333,333 at ten per cent with the addition of ten per cent 2,666,666 ￡43,333,333 ￡5,666,666 Having thus arrived at the annual amount of the proposed fund, I come, in the next place, to speak of the population proportioned to this fund, and to compare it with the uses to which the fund is to be applied. The population (I mean that of England) does not exceed seven millions and a half, and the number of persons above the age of fifty will in that case be about four hundred thousand. There would not, however, be more than that number that would accept the proposed ten pounds sterling per annum, though they would be entitled to it. I have no idea it would be accepted by many persons who had a yearly income of two or three hundred pounds sterling. But as we often see instances of rich people falling into sudden poverty, even at the age of sixty, they would always have the right of drawing all the arrears due to them. Four millions, therefore, of the above annual sum of￡5,666,6667 will be required for four hundred thousand aged persons, at ten pounds sterling each. I come now to speak of the persons annually arriving at twenty-one years of age. If all the persons who died were above the age of twenty-one years, the number of persons annually arriving at that age, must be equal to the annual number of deaths, to keep the population stationary. But the greater part die under the age of twenty-one, and therefore the number of persons annually arriving at twenty-one will be less than half the number of deaths. The whole number of deaths upon a population of seven millions and an half will be about 220,000 annually. The number arriving at twenty-one years of age will be about 100,000. The whole number of these will not receive the proposed fifteen pounds, for the reasons already mentioned, though, as in the former case, they would be entitled to it. Admitting then that a tenth part declined receiving it, the amount would stand thus: Fund annually ￡5,666,666 To 400,000 aged persons at 10 each ￡4,000,000 To 90,000 persons of 21 yrs, ￡15 ster. each 1,350,000 5,350,000 Remains￡5,666,666 There are, in every country, a number of blind and lame persons, totally incapable of earning a livelihood. But as it will always happen that the greater number of blind persons will be among those who are above the age of fifty years, they will be provided for in that class. The remaining sum of￡316,666 will provide for the lame and blind under that age, at the same rate of ￡10 annually for each person. Having now gone through all the necessary calculations, and stated the particulars of the plan, I shall conclude with some observations. It is not charity but a right, not bounty but justice, that I am pleading for. The present state of civilization is as odious as it is unjust. It is absolutely the opposite of what it should be, and it is necessary that a revolution should be made in it. The contrast of affluence and wretchedness continually meeting and offending the eye, is like dead and living bodies chained together. Though I care as little about riches, as any man, I am a friend to riches because they are capable of good. I care not how affluent some may be, provided that none be miserable in consequence of it. But it is impossible to enjoy affluence with the felicity it is capable of being enjoyed, while so much misery is mingled in the scene. The sight of the misery, and the unpleasant sensations it suggests, which, though they may be suffocated cannot be extinguished, are a greater drawback upon the felicity of affluence than the proposed 10 per cent, upon property is worth. He that would not give the one to get rid of the other has no charity, even for himself. There are, in every country, some magnificent charities established by individuals. It is, however, but little that any individual can do, when the whole extent of the misery to be relieved is considered. He may satisfy his conscience, but not his heart. He may give all that he has, and that all will relieve but little. It is only by organizing civilization upon such principles as to act like a system of pulleys, that the whole weight of misery can be removed. The plan here proposed will reach the whole. It will immediately relieve and take out of view three classes of wretchedness—the blind, the lame, and the aged poor; and it will furnish the rising generation with means to prevent their becoming poor; and it will do this without deranging or interfering with any national measures. To show that this will be the case, it is sufficient to observe that the operation and effect of the plan will, in all cases, be the same as if every individual were voluntarily to make his will and dispose of his property in the manner here proposed. But it is justice, and not charity, that is the principle of the plan. In all great cases it is necessary to have a principle more universally active than charity; and, with respect to justice, it ought not to be left to the choice of detached individuals whether they will do justice or not. Considering, then, the plan on the ground of justice, it ought to be the act of the whole growing spontaneously out of the principles of the revolution, and the reputation of it ought to be national and not individual. A plan upon this principle would benefit the revolution by the energy that springs from the consciousness of justice. It would multiply also the national resources; for property, like vegetation, increases by offsets. When a young couple begin the world, the difference is exceedingly great whether they begin with nothing or with fifteen pounds apiece. With this aid they could buy a cow, and implements to cultivate a few acres of land; and instead of becoming burdens upon society, which is always the case where children are produced faster than they can be fed, would be put in the way of becoming useful and profitable citizens. The national domains also would sell the better if pecuniary aids were provided to cultivate them in small lots. It is the practice of what has unjustly obtained the name of civilization (and the practice merits not to be called either charity or policy) to make some provision for persons becoming poor and wretched only at the time they become so. Would it not, even as a matter of economy, be far better to adopt means to prevent their becoming poor? This can best be done by making every person when arrived at the age of twenty-one years an inheritor of something to begin with. The rugged face of society, chequered with the extremes of affluence and want, proves that some extraordinary violence has been committed upon it, and calls on justice for redress. The great mass of the poor in all countries are become an hereditary race, and it is next to impossible for them to get out of that state of themselves. It ought also to be observed that this mass increases in all countries that are called civilized. More persons fall annually into it than get out of it. Though in a plan of which justice and humanity are the foundation-principles, interest ought not to be admitted into the calculation, yet it is always of advantage to the establishment of any plan to show that it is beneficial as a matter of interest. The success of any proposed plan submitted to public consideration must finally depend on the numbers interested in supporting it, united with the justice of its principles. The plan here proposed will benefit all, without injuring any. It will consolidate the interest of the republic with that of the individual. To the numerous class dispossessed of their natural inheritance by the system of landed property it will be an act of national justice. To persons dying possessed of moderate fortunes it will operate as a tontine to their children, more beneficial than the sum of money paid into the fund: and it will give to the accumulation of riches a degree of security that none of the old governments of Europe, now tottering on their foundations, can give. I do not suppose that more than one family in ten, in any of the countries of Europe, has, when the head of the family dies, a clear property left of five hundred pounds sterling. To all such the plan is advantageous. That property would pay fifty pounds into the fund, and if there were only two children under age they would receive fifteen pounds each (thirty pounds), on coming of age, and be entitled to ten pounds a year after fifty. It is from the overgrown acquisition of property that the fund will support itself; and I know that the possessors of such property in England, though they would eventually be benefited by the protection of nine-tenths of it, will exclaim against the plan. But without entering into any inquiry how they came by that property, let them recollect that they have been the advocates of this war, and that Mr. Pitt has already laid on more new taxes to be raised annually upon the people of England, and that for supporting the despotism of Austria and the Bourbons against the liberties of France, than would pay annually all the sums proposed in this plan. I have made the calculations stated in this plan, upon what is called personal, as well as upon landed property. The reason for making it upon land is already explained; and the reason for taking personal property into the calculation is equally well founded though on a different principle. Land, as before said, is the free gift of the Creator in common to the human race. Personal property is the effect of society; and it is as impossible for an individual to acquire personal property without the aid of society, as it is for him to make land originally. Separate an individual from society, and give him an island or a continent to possess, and he cannot acquire personal property. He cannot be rich. So inseparably are the means connected with the end, in all cases, that where the former do not exist the latter cannot be obtained. All accumulation, therefore, of personal property, beyond what a man’s own hands produce, is derived to him by living in society; and he owes on every principle of justice, of gratitude, and of civilization, a part of that accumulation back again to society from whence the whole came. This is putting the matter on a general principle, and perhaps it is best to do so; for if we examine the case minutely it will be found that the accumulation of personal property is, in many instances, the effect of paying too little for the labour that produced it; the consequence of which is that the working hand perishes in old age, and the employer abounds in affluence. It is, perhaps, impossible to proportion exactly the price of labour to the profits it produces; and it will also be said, as an apology for the injustice, that were a workman to receive an increase of wages daily he would not save it against old age, nor be much better for it in the interim. Make, then, society the treasurer to guard it for him in a common fund; for it is no reason, that because he might not make a good use of it for himself, another should take it. The state of civilization that has prevailed throughout Europe, is as unjust in its principle, as it is horrid in its effects; and it is the consciousness of this, and the apprehension that such a state cannot continue when once investigation begins in any country, that makes the possessors of property dread every idea of a revolution. It is the hazard and not the principle of revolutions that retards their progress. This being the case, it is necessary as well for the protection of property as for the sake of justice and humanity, to form a system that, whilst it preserves one part of society from wretchedness, shall secure the other from depredation. The superstitious awe, the enslaving reverence, that formerly surrounded affluence, is passing away in all countries, and leaving the possessor of property to the convulsion of accidents. When wealth and splendour, instead of fascinating the multitude, excite emotions of disgust; when, instead of drawing forth admiration, it is beheld as an insult upon wretchedness; when the ostentatious appearance it makes serves to call the right of it in question, the case of property becomes critical, and it is only in a system of justice that the possessor can contemplate security. To remove the danger, it is necessary to remove the antipathies, and this can only be done by making property productive of a national blessing, extending to every individual. When the riches of one man above another shall increase the national fund in the same proportion; when it shall be seen that the prosperity of that fund depends on the prosperity of individuals; when the more riches a man acquires, the better it shall be for the general mass; it is then that antipathies will cease, and property be placed on the permanent basis of national interest and protection. I have no property in France to become subject to the plan I propose. What I have, which is not much, is in the United States of America. But I will pay one hundred pounds sterling towards this fund in Fance, the instant it shall be established; and I will pay the same sum in England, whenever a similar establishment shall take place in that country. A revolution in the state of civilization is the necessary companion of revolutions in the system of government. If a revolution in any country be from bad to good, or from good to bad, the state of what is called civilization in that country, must be made conformable thereto, to give that revolution effect. Despotic government supports itself by abject civilization, in which debasement of the human mind, and wretchedness in the mass of the people, are the chief criterions. Such governments consider man merely as an animal; that the exercise of intellectual faculty is not his privilege; that he has nothing to do with the laws but to obey them;[1] and they politically depend more upon breaking the spirit of the people by poverty, than they fear enraging it by desperation. It is a revolution in the state of civilization that will give perfection to the Revolution of France. Already the conviction that government by representation is the true system of government is spreading itself fast in the world. The reasonableness of it can be seen by all. The justness of it makes itself felt even by its opposers. But when a system of civilization, growing out of that system of government, shall be so organized that not a man or woman born in the Republic but shall inherit some means of beginning the world, and see before them the certainty of escaping the miseries that under other governments accompany old age, the Revolution of France will have an advocate and an ally in the heart of all nations. An army of principles will penetrate where an army of soldiers cannot; it will succeed where diplomatic management would fail: it is neither the Rhine, the Channel, nor the Ocean that can arrest its progress: it will march on the horizon of the world, and it will conquer. [1] Expression of Horsley, an English bishop, in the English parliament.—Author. Means for Carrying the Proposed Plan into Execution, and to Render it at the Same Time Conducive to the Public Interest I. Each canton shall elect in its primary assemblies, three persons, as commissioners for that canton, who shall take cognizance, and keep a register of all matters happening in that canton, conformable to the charter that shall be established by law for carrying this plan into execution. II. The law shall fix the manner in which the property of deceased persons shall be ascertained. III. When the amount of the property of any deceased person shall be ascertained, the principal heir to that property, or the eldest of the co-heirs, if of lawful age, or if under age the person authorized by the will of the deceased to represent him or them, shall give bond to the commissioners of the canton to pay the said tenth part thereof in four equal quarterly payments, within the space of one year or sooner, at the choice of the payers. One half of the whole property shall remain as a security until the bond be paid off. IV. The bond shall be registered in the office of the commissioners of the canton, and the original bonds shall be deposited in the national bank at Paris. The bank shall publish every quarter of a year the amount of the bonds in its possession, and also the bonds that shall have been paid off, or what parts thereof, since the last quarterly publication. V. The national bank shall issue bank notes upon the security of the bonds in its possession. The notes so issued, shall be applied to pay the pensions of aged persons, and the compensations to persons arriving at twenty-one years of age. It is both reasonable and generous to suppose, that persons not under immediate necessity, will suspend their right of drawing on the fund, until it acquire, as it will do, a greater degree of ability. In this case, it is proposed, that an honorary register be kept, in each canton, of the names of the persons thus suspending that right, at least during the present war. VI. As the inheritors of property must always take up their bonds in four quarterly payments, or sooner if they choose, there will always be numéraire [cash] arriving at the bank after the expiration of the first quarter, to exchange for the bank notes that shall be brought in. VII. The bank notes being thus put in circulation, upon the best of all possible security, that of actual property, to more than four times the amount of the bonds upon which the notes are issued, and with numéraire continually arriving at the bank to exchange or pay them off whenever they shall be presented for that purpose, they will acquire a permanent value in all parts of the Republic. They can therefore be received in payment of taxes, or emprunts equal to numéraire, because the government can always receive numéraire for them at the bank. VIII. It will be necessary that the payments of the ten per cent, be made in numéraire for the first year from the establishment of the plan. But after the expiration of the first year, the inheritors of property may pay ten per cent either in bank notes issued upon the fund, or in numéraire. If the payments be in numéraire, it will lie as a deposit at the bank, to be exchanged for a quantity of notes equal to that amount; and if in notes issued upon the fund, it will cause a demand upon the fund equal thereto; and thus the operation of the plan will create means to carry itself into execution. 尽管这个纷乱杂陈的世界会迷惑我们的眼睛，声音会欺骗我们的耳朵，偏见会扭曲我们的意志，利益会迷住我们的心窍，但自然和理性却会用最朴素的声音告诉我们：这样做是对的。 Table of Contents 常 识 序 言 论政府的起源与目的，并简评英国政体 论君主制和世袭制 对北美目前形势的思考 论北美目前的能力，以及其他一些想法 附 记 关于土地的公平问题 作者自序 土地公平论 基金的创建方式 实施本方案，同时利用它促进公共利益的方法 Common Sense Introduction Of the Origin and Design of Government in General. With Concise Remarks on the English Constitution Of Monarchy and Hereditary Succession Thoughts on the Present State of American Affairs Of the Present Ability of America, with some Miscellaneous Reflections Appendix Agrarian Justice Author's English Preface Agrarian Justice Means by which the Fund is to be Created Means for Carrying the Proposed Plan into Execution, and to Render it at the Same Time Conducive to the Public Interest