托馬斯·潘恩《常識》

愛國者的責任就是保護國家不受政府侵犯 

COMMON SENSE

常識

Thomas Paine

托馬斯·潘恩（1737.1.29—1809.6.8）

Of the origin and design of government in general. With concise remarks on the English constitution.

泛論政權的起源和目的，並簡評英國政體。

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.

有些作者把社會和政府混為一談，弄得它們彼此沒有多少區別，甚或完全沒有區別；而實際上它們不但不是一回事，而且有不同的起源。社會是由我們的欲望所產生的，政府是由我們的邪惡所產生的；前者使我們一體同心，從而積極地增進我們的幸福，後者制止我們的惡行，從而消極地增進我們的幸福。一個是鼓勵交往，另一個是制造差別。前面的一個是獎勵者，後面的一個是懲罰者。

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 calamity is 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.

社會在各種情況下都是受人歡迎的，可是政府呢，即使在其最好的情況下，也不過是一件免不了的禍害；在其最壞的情況下，就成了不可容忍的禍害；因為，當我們受苦的時候，當我們從一個政府方面遭受那些只有在無政府的國家中才可能遭受的不幸時，我們由於想到自己親手提供了受苦的根源而格外感到痛心。政府好比衣服，是天真純樸受到殘害的表征；帝王的宮殿是建築在樂園的亭榭的廢墟上的。如果良心的激發是天日可鑒的、始終如一的和信守不渝的，一個人就毋需其他的立法者；但事實並非如此，他覺得有必要放棄一部分的財產，出錢換取其余的人的保護；謹慎小心的原則在其他任何場合都勸他兩害相權取其輕，現在這個原則也促使他這樣做。因此，既然安全是政府的真正的意圖和目的，那就毫無疑義地可以推斷，任何看起來最有可能保證我們安全的形式，只要是花費最少而得益最大，都是其他一切人所願意接受的。

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.

為了清楚而正確地了解政府的意圖和目的，我們假定有少數人在地球的某一個隱僻的部分住下來，同其余的人不發生聯系；他們就將代表任何一塊地方或世界上的第一批移民。在這種自然的自由狀態下，他們將首先想到社會。

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 lab our 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.

千百種的動機都將鼓勵他們趨向這一目標。單單一個人的力量應付不了他的各種需要，他的心境又不堪永遠寂寞，因此他不久就被迫尋求另一個人的幫助和安慰，而對方也有同樣的要求。四五個人通力合作，就能夠在曠野當中興建一個還算過得去的住所，但單獨一個人的力量就可能勞碌終生而一無所成。當他砍了木頭之後他搬不動它，就是搬動了也豎不起來；同時饑餓會逼他離開工作，每一種不同的需要會以不同的方式來支使他。疾病，哪怕是一件不幸，也意味著死亡；因為它們縱然並不致人於死命，也會使他不能維持生活，落到死不死活不活的境地。

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.

這樣，客觀的需要像一種吸引力似的，馬上會把我們這些剛到的移民組成社會，而彼此從社會生活中所得的幸福就會確立起來，並且只要人們始終互以真誠相待，就不必有法律和政府的約束；然而，由於唯獨上帝才不為邪惡所侵染，結果就必然發生這樣的情況：他們剛剛克服了那些在共同的事業中把他們團結起來的遷居之初所遇到的種種困難之後，立刻便開始忽視彼此應盡的責任和應有的情誼。這種怠懈表明有必要建立某種形式的統治，來彌補德行方面的缺陷。

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.

某一棵地點適中的大樹將供給他們一座大禮堂，全體移民區的人可以在樹蔭下聚會，討論公共的問題。很可能，他們第一批的法律只是稱為條例，在推行的時候至多以公眾的鄙視作為違犯條例的懲罰。在這第一次的會議中，人人自然都有權利占據一個席位。

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 have who appointed them, and who will act in the same manner as the whole body would act were they present. If the colony continue 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 reflex ion 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.

可是，隨著移民區的發展，公眾所關心的事情也增加了，同時成員間彼此可能離得很遠，不便像從前那樣大家每次都聚在一起，而當初他們的人數不多，住處很近，公眾所關心的事情是寥寥無幾的和瑣碎的。這種情況表明，他們同意從全體成員中選出一些優秀的人來專門管理立法工作，是有其方便的地方的；這些人應該關心那些選派他們的人所關心的事情，一切做法同全體成員親自出席時所采取的一樣。如果移民區繼續發展，就有必要擴大代表的名額，使移民區的各部分的利益都可以受到照顧，同時最好是把整個區域分成若幹適當的部分，每一部分派出相應的人數，這樣一來，當選人就永遠不會獨自關心一種與選舉人毫不相幹的利益，並且為了審慎起見，時常舉行選舉是適當的：通過這種方式，當選人有可能在幾個月以後回去再同群眾混雜在一起，他們就不敢自找苦吃，從而他們對於公眾的忠實也就會有所保證。因為這種不時的互換會同社會的每一部分建立共同的利害關系，各部分就會自然地互相支援，正是基於這一點（不是基於帝王的無意義的名號），才產生政府的力量和被統治者的幸福。

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.

這便是政府的起源和興起；也就是說，這是由於人們德行的軟弱無力而有必要采用的治理世界的方式；由此也可看出政府的意圖和目的，即自由與安全。不管我們的眼睛在紛然雜陳的事物面前如何眼花繚亂，或者我們的耳朵如何受音響的欺騙，也不管偏頗的見解如何把我們的意誌引入歧途，或者個人的利害關系如何迷了我們的心竅，自然和理性的坦率的呼聲也畢竟會說這是對的。

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 over run with tyranny the least remove there from was a glorious rescue. But that it is imperfect, subject to convulsions, and incapable of producing what it seems to promise, is easily demonstrated.

我對於政體的這種想法，是從一項無法推翻的自然原理推論出來的，也就是說，任何事物愈是簡單，它愈不容易發生紊亂，即使發生紊亂也比較容易糾正；根據這項原理，我現在想對大肆吹噓的英國政體說幾句話。在制定英國政體的黑暗的奴隸時代，它是光榮的，這一點我並不否認。在宇內暴政肆虐的時候，盡量不脫離這種政體，那也是一種光榮的出路。可是，要論證現在這個政體是不完備的、不穩固的、不能產生它應有的效果的，那倒是容易的。

Absolute governments (though' 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.

專制政體（雖然這是人類本性的恥辱）有這樣的好處，就是它們來得簡單，如果人民受苦遭難，他們知道他們的苦難是從誰的頭腦裏產生出來的；也知道補救的辦法；沒有五花八門的原因和救苦消災的方法使他們茫然失措。可是英國的政體十分復雜，全國人民可能受苦多年而根本發現不出這是哪一方面的過錯；有些人會這樣說，有些人會那樣說，每一個政治醫生開的藥方也各不相同。

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.

我知道，要克服地區的或由來已久的偏見是困難的，可是如果我們耐心考察一下英國政體的組成部分，我們就會看出它們是羼雜著一些新的共和政體因素的兩種古代暴政的骯臟殘余。

First.--The remains of monarchical tyranny in the person of the king.

第一，由國王所體現的君主政體暴政的殘余。

Secondly.--The remains of aristocratically tyranny in the persons of the peers.

第二，由上議院所體現的貴族政治暴政的殘余。

Thirdly.--The new republican materials, in the persons of the commons, on whose virtue depends the freedom of England.

第三，由下議院所體現的新的共和政體的成分；而英國的自由便是以下議院的效能為基礎的。

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.

前兩種是世襲的，與人民無關；因此，從法治上講，它們對於國家的自由是毫無貢獻的。

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.

要說英國的政體是三種勢力的合一，互相牽制，那是可笑的；這句話不是毫無意義，便是不折不扣的自相矛盾。

To say that the commons is a check upon the king, presupposes two things.

所謂下議院是對國王的一種牽制，這話包含兩層意思。

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.

第一，如果沒有人監督，對國王是不能信任的；或者換句話說，渴望保持專制政權的欲念是君主政體的固有的弊病。

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!

第二，為此而被任命的下議院議員不是比國王賢明，便是更值得信任。可是，這同樣的政體先是授權下議院，使它可以用不同意國家預算的辦法來牽制國王，以後卻又授權國王，使他有權否決下議院的其他議案，借此來牽制下議院；於是它又含有這樣的意思：國王比它已經認為較國王賢明的那些人來得賢明。真是荒唐透頂！

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 judgment 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, by unnaturally opposing and destroying each other, prove the whole character to be absurd and useless.

在君主政治的體制裏有一些極端可笑的東西；這個體制首先使一個人無從獲得廣博的見聞，然而又授權他去解決那些需要十分明智地加以判斷的問題。國玉的身份使他昧於世事，然而國王的職務卻要求他洞悉一切；因此這兩種不同的方面，由於它們出乎常理地相互敵對和破壞，證明那整個的人物是荒唐的和無用的。

Some writers have explained the English constitution thus; the king, say they, is one, the people another; the peers are an house in behalf of the king; the commons in behalf of the people; but this hath all the distinctions of an 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.

有些作家曾經這樣地解釋英國的政體：他們說國王是一方面，人民是另一方面；上議院是代表國王的議院，下議院是代表人民的議院；可是這種解釋把議會的一切特征割裂開來，不能自圓其說；縱然文章做得很漂亮，但一經推敲，它們卻顯得毫無根據和意義含混了；而且總會發生這樣的情況：哪怕是絕頂講究的文字，如果所描述的是一種決不可能存在的事情，或者是一種頗為費解而無法描述的事情，也只能是一堆響亮的字眼，它們固然好聽，卻缺乏思想內容。其原因是，這種解釋包含一個先決問題，那就是說，既然國王所憑借的權力是人民不敢信任的，並且常常不得不加以牽制，那麽這個國王怎麽會產生的呢？這樣一種權力決不會是賢明的人民所賦予的，任何需要牽制的權力也不會是從上帝那裏得來的；然而憲法的條文卻規定這樣的權力要存在的。

But the provision is unequal to the task; the means either cannot or will not accomplish the end, and the whole affair is a felon 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 endeavors will be ineffectual; the first moving power will at last have its way, and what it wants in speed is supplied by time.

憲法條文不能起到它應起的作用；這個手段不能也不會達到目的，而全盤的事情等於是一種“自殺”：因為，既然較重的秤砣總會稱起分量較小的東西，既然一架機器的各個輪子都由一個輪子推動，我們還需要知道的，就是在這個政體中哪一種權力最為重要，因為那種權力將起著支配作用：雖然其他的權力，或其中的一部分，可以阻礙或所謂牽制它的運轉的速度，但是只要它們無法使它停止，它們的努力總是白費的：第一個動力終將為所欲為，而它在速度上感到不足的，在時間上可以得到彌補。

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.

國王是英國政體中這個壓倒一切的部分，這一點是不必明說的，而他僅僅因為給人以地位和津貼，才獲得他那全部的勢力，這一點也是不言而喻的；因此，雖然我們十分聰明，曾經對專制君主政體關門下鎖，但同時我們也十分愚蠢，曾讓國王掌握了鑰匙。

The prejudice of Englishmen, in favor 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.

英國人支持他們自己的由國王、上議院和下議院統治的政府，這種偏見一半來自理智，一半來自民族自傲，甚或以後者的成分居多。在英國，個人無疑地要比在其他國家安全一些：但是國王的意誌無論在英國或法國都同樣是國家的法律，所不同的是，英國國王的意誌不是直接從他的口裏表達出來，而是通過議會法令的可怕的形式交給人民的。因為查理一世的命運只是使得國王們更為狡猾，不是更為正直。

Wherefore, laying aside all national pride and prejudice in favor 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.

因此，撇開所有那些贊成形式和結構的民族自傲與偏見不談，昭然若揭的真理是：英國國王所以不像土耳其國王那樣暴虐，這完全是由於人民的素質，而不是由於政府的體制。

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 is 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 of a wife, so any prepossession in favor of a rotten constitution of government will disable us from discerning a good one.

對於英國政權形式的體制方面的錯誤作一番探討，在目前是非常必要的；當我們還受到某種突出的偏愛的影響的時候，我們就決不能予人以公正的評價，同樣地，當我們還受到任何頑固的偏見的束縛的時候，我們也就不能對自己做出公平的論斷。一個眷戀娼妓的男子是不配選擇或品評妻子的，同樣地，任何贊成一個腐朽政體的成見也將使我們不能識別一個好的政體。

OF MONARCHY AND HEREDITARY SUCCESSION.

論君主政體和世襲

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 necessitous poor, it generally makes him too timorous to be wealthy.

在宇宙萬物的體系中，人類本來是平等的，這種平等只能為以後的某一樁事故所破壞：貧富的差別是很可以加以說明的，而且在說明的時候不必采用壓迫和貪婪之類刺耳的、難聽的字眼。壓迫往往是財富的後果，而很少是或決不是致富的手段；雖然貪婪會使一個人不致陷入赤貧的境地，但一般說來它卻使他變得怯懦，發不了大財。

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 enquiring into, and whether they are the means of happiness or of misery to mankind.

可是，還有一種不能用真正自然的或宗教的理由來解釋的更大的差別，那就是把人們分成“國王”和“臣民”的差別。陽性與陰性是自然做出的差別，善與惡是上蒼作出的差別；但是有一類人降生世間，怎麽會高出於其余的人之上，儼然像一個新的人種那樣與眾不同，倒是值得加以探究，了解他們究竟是促進人類幸福的手段還是招致人類苦難的手段。

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 monarchical governments in Europe. Antiquity favors 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.

在世界的古代社會，根據《聖經》上的記載來看，並沒有帝王；這種情況所產生的結果是，當時沒有什麽戰爭；而現在使人類陷入混亂的，乃是帝王的傲慢。荷蘭沒有國王，近百年來已經比歐洲任何君主政體的國家安享了更多的和平【1815 年以前，荷蘭加入了聯邦共和國，並在其中占據了統治地位。——譯者】。古代的歷史也可以證實這種說法；因為最初一批宗族首領所過的恬靜的田園生活本身自有一種樂趣，這種樂趣當我們讀到猶太王族史的時候便消失了。

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 honors 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!

由國王掌握的政權形式最初是異教徒開始采用的，後來猶太人向他們模仿了這種慣例。這是魔鬼為了鼓勵偶像崇拜而進行的最得意的傑作。異教徒把他們去世的國王視為神聖，向他們表示敬意，而基督教世界則進了一步，以同樣的態度對待活著的國王。把神聖的“陛下”這一稱號施諸於耀武揚威而轉瞬變為白骨的小人，該是多麽褻瀆！

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 C\jar the things which are C\jar’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.

把一個人的地位捧得高出其余的人很多，這種做法從自然的平等權利的原則來說是毫無根據的，也不能引經據典地加以辯護：因為基甸【見《舊約全書·士師記》——譯者】和先知撒母耳【見《舊約全書·撒母耳記》——譯者】所宣布的耶和華的意誌分明不贊成由國玉掌握的政權。在君主國家裏，《聖經》上一切反對君主政體的部分已被很巧妙地掩飾過去了，但它們無疑地值得引起那些尚待組織政府的國家的註意。該撒的物當歸給該撒【見《新約全書·馬可福音》——譯者】，是宮廷所引述的《聖經》上的教義，但它並非君主政體的根據，因為當時的猶太人還沒有國王，還處在隸屬於羅馬人的地位。

Near 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 honor, should disapprove of a form of government which so impiously invades the prerogative of heaven.

從摩西記載創世的時候起，到猶太人全體受騙而要求立一個國王的時候止，差不多過了三千年。在立國王以前，他們的政權形式（耶和華偶然插手幹涉的特殊情況除外）是一種共和政體，由一位士師和各宗族的首領執掌。他們沒有國王，他們認為，除萬人之主的耶和華以外，要承認有誰享有君王的稱號，乃是一種罪惡。當一個人嚴厲地譴責人們對君王之類的盲目崇拜時，他毋庸懷疑，那和華既然永遠要人相信他的光榮，是不會贊成那種悍然地侵犯上天特權的政體形式的。

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.

君主政體在《聖經》中列為猶太人的罪惡之一，並預言這種罪惡將產生怎樣的災禍。那個事件的歷史是值得註意的。

The children of Israel being oppressed by the Midianites, Gideon marched against them with a small army, and victory, thro' the divine interposition, decided in his favor. 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 a 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 honor, but denied their right to give it; neither doth he compliment them with invented declarations of his thanks, but in the positive stile of a prophet charges them with disaffection to their proper Sovereign, the King of heaven.

因為以色列人受到米甸人的壓迫，基甸便帶領一小支軍隊向他們進攻，終於在神的參與下獲得了勝利。猶太人得勝以後十分高興，認為這是基甸的雄才大略的結果，因此提議推他為王，說：願你和你的兒孫管理我們。這確實是個最能打動人心的誘惑；不單純是個王位，而且是個世襲的王位；可是基甸內心虔誠地回答說，我不管理你們，我的兒子也不管理你們。唯有耶和華管理你們。話不能說得再清楚了；基甸並非拒絕這種榮譽，而是否定他們有給他這種榮譽的權利；他也並不是用自己想出來的一番客套話向他們表示感謝，而是用先知的肯定語氣責怪他們不應叛離他們自己的君主，即上帝。

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 the 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 rein 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 show 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 horsemen, 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 to 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 feed, and of your vineyards, and give them to his officers and to his servants (by which we see that bribery, corruption and favoritism 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.

在這件事情之後大約過了一百三十年，他們又犯了同樣的錯誤。猶太人想要模仿異教徒偶像崇拜的風俗的渴望是簡直難以形容的；結果，他們抓住了撒母耳的負責管理世俗事務的兩個兒子的不端行為，便吵吵鬧鬧地匆匆來到撤母耳的眼前說，你年紀老邁了，你兒子不行你的道，現在求你為我們立一個王治理我們，像列國一樣。在這裏，我們不能不說他們的動機是壞的，就是說，他們希望像其他的國家、即異教徒一樣，而他們真正的光榮卻在於盡可能不像他們。撒母耳不喜悅他們說，立一個王治理我們；他就禱告耶和華。耶和華對撒母耳說，百姓向你說的一切話，你只管依從，因為他們不是厭棄你，乃是厭棄我，不要我作他們的王。自從我領他們出埃及到如今，他們常常離開我，事奉別神，現在他們向你所行的，是照他們素來所行的。故此你要依從他們的話，只是當警戒他們，告訴他們將來那王怎樣管轄他們。也就是說，不是任何個別國王的統治辦法，而是以色列人急於想模仿的世間一切國王的慣用的手段。現在，雖然年代已經隔得很遠，做法也大不相同，可是性質仍舊沒有改變，撒母耳將耶和華的話，都傳給求他立王的百姓說，管轄你們的王必這樣行。他必派你們的兒子為他趕車，跟馬，奔走在車前（這個描寫同現令強人服役的人的行徑相符合）。又派他們作千夫長、五十夫長，為他耕種田地，收割莊稼，打造兵器和車上的器械。必取你們的女兒為他制造香膏，作飯烤餅（這段話形容國王的奢侈、浪費和壓制手段）。也必取你們最好的田地、葡萄園、橄欖園，賜給他的臣仆。你們的糧食和葡萄園所出的，也必取十分之一，給他的大監和臣仆（從這裏我們可以看出，受賄、貪汙和徇私乃是國王們的一貫的惡劣作風）。又必取你們的仆人婢女、健壯的少年人和你們的驢，供他的差役。你們的羊群他必取十分之一，你們也必作他的仆人。那時你們必因所選的王哀求耶和華，耶和華卻不應允你們。這說明了君主政體繼續存在的原因；自古以來寥寥無幾的善良國王的品德，既不能使這一名號成為正當的東西，又不能抹掉最初產生國王的罪孽；《聖經》上對大衛頗多好評，並不在於他在職務上是個國王，而只在於他是一個迎合上帝心意的人。

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, in asking you a king. So Samuel called unto 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 servant sun to 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.

然而百姓竟不肯聽撒母耳的話，說：不然，我們定要一個王治理我們，使我們像列國一樣，有王治理我們，統領我們，為我們爭戰。撒母耳繼續開導他們，可是沒有效果；他指出他們忘恩負義，可是也都枉然；當他看出他們一意孤行的時候，他喊道：我求告耶和華，他必打雷降雨（因為當時正是麥收季節，這是一種懲罰），使你們又知道又看出，你們求立王的事，是在耶和華面前犯大罪了。於是撤母耳求告耶和華，耶和華就在這日打雷降雨，眾民便甚懼怕耶和華和撒母耳。眾民對撒母耳說，求你為仆人們禱告耶和華你的神，免得我們死亡，因為我們求立王的事，正是罪上加罪了。聖經的這些部分都是清楚而肯定的。它們不容有任何模棱兩可的解釋。要末是上帝確曾在這裏對君主政體提出抗議，要末是《聖經》是偽造的。我們有充分的理由可以相信，在信奉天主教的國家裏，國王和神甫是費盡心機，竭力不讓人民了解這些經文的。因為君主政體毫無例外地是政治上的天主教會制度。

To the evil of monarchy we have added that of hereditary succession; and as the first are 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 honors of his cotemporaries, 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.

除君主政體的弊害以外，另外還有世襲的弊害；君主政體意味著我們自身的墮落和失勢，同樣地，被人當作權利來爭奪的世襲，則是對我們子孫的侮辱和欺騙。因為，既然一切人生來是平等的，那麽誰也不能由於出身而有權創立一個永遠比其他家庭占優越地位的家庭，並且，雖然他本人也許值得同時代人的相當程度的尊敬，他的後輩卻可能絕對不配承襲這種榮譽。有一個十分有力的明顯的證據，足以證明國王享有世襲權是荒謬的，那就是，天道並不贊成這種辦法，否則它就不會常常把笨驢而不把雄獅給予人類，從而使得這項制度成為笑柄了。

Secondly, as no man at first could possess any other public honors than were bestowed upon him, so the givers of those honors 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."

其次，任何人起初只能保持人家所授予他的社會榮譽，同樣地，那些榮譽的授予者也沒有權力來犧牲子孫的權利；雖然他們可以說“我們推你做我們的王”，他們卻不能說“你們的子孫和你們子孫的子孫可以永遠統治我們的子孫和我們子孫的子孫”，而不侵犯自己後輩的權利。

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.

其原因是，這樣一種愚蠢的、不公正的、不合人情的約許，很可能在下一個朝代就使他們受到惡棍或者傻瓜的統治。大多數賢明的人士在個人情緒上向來總是以輕蔑的態度對待世襲權的；不過這是那種一經確立就不容易掃除的弊害之一；許多人因恐懼而服從，另一些人因迷信而服從，一部分比較有權有勢的人則幫同國王對其余的人進行掠奪。

This is supposing the present race of kings in the world to have had an honorable origin; whereas it is more than probable, that could we take off the dark covering of antiquity, 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 complementally; but as few or no records were extant in those days, and tradition 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 favor 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.

人們一般認為現今世界上的那一群國王都有光榮的來歷：而最可能的實際情況是，如果我們能夠扯掉古代隱蔽的掩蓋，追溯到他們發跡的根源，我們就會發現，他們的始祖只不過是某一夥不逞之徒中的作惡多端的魁首罷了，他那殘忍的行徑或出名的陰險手段為他贏得了盜匪頭領的稱號：由於勢力的增加和掠奪範圍的擴大，他嚇倒了手無寸鐵的善良人民，逼得他們時常貢獻財物來換取他們的安全。可是那些推選他的人決不會想到要把世襲權給他的後裔，因為他們這樣的永遠放棄自己的權利，是與他們聲言在生活上所要遵循的不受拘束的自由原則相抵觸的。因此，君主政體初期的世襲，只能作為臨時的或補充的辦法，而不能作為理所當然的制度來推行：可是，由於那個時代幾乎沒有留下或根本沒有留下記錄，口頭相傳的歷史充滿著虛構的故事，因此隔了幾代之後，就很容易捏造一套當時可以順利地散布的、像關於異教始祖的傳說般的、迷信的鬼話，三番四復地向民眾宣傳世襲權的概念。也許，在首領逝世而要推選一個新的首領時，騷亂的局面（因為歹徒中間的選舉是不會很有秩序的）使許多人感到驚恐或似乎感到驚恐，誘導他們最初贊成世襲的主張；因此，正如此後所發生的那樣，最初認為是一時的變通辦法，在以後卻硬說是一種權利了。

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 honorable 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.

自從諾曼底公爵征服英國以來，英國出了幾個好的君主，但它曾在人數遠為眾多的暴君的統治下發出痛苦的呻吟：凡是有理智的人，決不會說他們在威廉一世的統治下所能享受的權利是很光榮的。一個法國的野雜種帶了一隊武裝的土匪登陸，違反當地人民的意誌而自立為英格蘭國王，我們可以毫不客氣他說這個人的出身是卑賤不堪的【英國威廉一世（在位年代1066—1087）生於諾曼底。他在哈斯丁斯的戰役中殘酷地鎮壓了當地居民的反抗，於1066 年侵入了大下列顛的疆界。——譯者】。這當然沒有神力的意味在內。然而我們也不必花費很多時間來揭露世襲權的荒唐可笑；如果有誰腦子很笨，竟然相信這個，那就讓他們不分青紅皂白地崇拜笨驢和雄獅，並表示歡迎吧。我既不會模仿他們的卑順，也不會妨礙他們的信仰。

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. 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. Dishonorable rank! Inglorious connation! Yet the most subtitle sophist cannot produce a jester simile.

可是我倒高興問一下，他們認為最初國王是怎麽產生的？這問題只能有三個答案，那就是，或者憑抽簽，或者靠選舉，或者通過篡奪。如果第一個國王是由抽簽決定的，這就為下一任國王做出先例，不能世襲。掃羅【以色列人的第一任國王，見《舊約全書·撒母耳記上》——譯者】由抽簽立為國王，但是王位的繼承不是世襲的，並且從這一件事的前後經過來看，我們也看不出有打算世襲的任何形跡。如果一個國家的第一任國王是由選舉產生的，那也同樣給下一任作出先例；要是第一批的選民不僅選舉一個國王，而且選舉一個世襲的王族，從而拋棄一切後代的權利，那麽除了關於人類的自由意誌都斷送在亞當之手這一原罪的教義而外，查遍《聖經》也找不出同樣的例子來；根據這種對照，而且也不可能根據別種對照，世襲制度是得不出光榮的結論來的。體現在亞當方面的是人人都犯了罪，體現在第一批選民方面的是人人都唯命是聽；體現在前者的是人類都受撒旦的擺布，體現在後者的是人類都受統治權的支配；由於前者我們喪失了純潔，由於後者我們喪失了主權；既然雙方都使我們不能恢復先前的某種狀態和特權，我們無疑地可以由此推斷，原罪和世襲是相類的。多麽丟臉的並列！多麽不光彩的聯系！然而最機敏的雄辯家也想不出比這更恰當的譬喻。

As to usurpation, no man will be so hardy as to defend it; and that William the Conqueror was a usurper is a fact not to be contradicted. The plain truth is that the antiquity of English monarchy will not bear looking into.

說到篡奪，那是誰也不會敢於替這種行為辯護的；威廉一世是個篡奪者，這是不容否認的事實。明擺著的實際情況是，英國君主政體的起源將經不起仔細的考察。

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.

但是，與人類有關的世襲制的荒謬，還遠不如它所造成的禍害來得嚴重。如果這種制度能保證提供一群善良而賢明的人士，那倒還可以算是獲得神權的特許，但事實上它只是為愚人、惡人和下流人大開方便之門，因此它就帶有苦難的性質。那些自視為天生的統治者和視人為天生奴才的人，不久便橫行霸道起來。由於他們是從其余的人類中挑選出來的，他們的心理早就為妄自尊大所毒害；他們在其中活動的世界，與一般的世界有顯著的區別，因此他們簡直沒有機會了解一般世界的真正的利益，當他們繼承政權的時候，往往對於整個疆土以內的事情茫無所知，不配加以處理。

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.

伴隨著世襲制的另一種禍害是，王位動輒為一個不拘年齡的未成年的人所占有；在那個時期，以國王作掩護而攝政的人，就有一切的機會和動機來叛棄人們對他的信任。當一個國王年老體衰，步人人類衰弱的末期的時候，也會發生與全國有關的同樣的不幸。在這兩種情況下，民眾成為形形色色的惡棍手中的犧牲品，因為這些人可以順利地玩弄由老年或幼年所造成的種種愚蠢行為。

The most plausible plea, which hath ever been offered in favor of hereditary succession, is that it preserves a nation from civil wars; and was 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.

贊成世襲制的人曾經提出的似乎最言之成理的辯解是，它保全國家，不致發生內戰；假如這一點是正確的話，那倒很有分量；但實際上它卻是曾對人類進行欺騙的最無恥的謊言。英國的全部歷史也否認有這樣的事實。從1066 年以來，有三十個國王和兩個幼王統治了這個混亂的王國，在這段時期中，至少發生過八次內戰和十九次叛亂（包括革命在內）。所以它不是對和平有貢獻，而是不利於和平，並破壞了它所依賴的基礎。

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.

約克王室和蘭卡斯特王室間爭奪君權和繼承權的鬥爭，使英國有好多年淪為流血的戰場【指持續達三十年之久（1455—1485）的兩個王朝——約克王朝和蘭卡斯特王朝的爭奪王位的鬥爭。——譯者】。亨利和愛德華打了十二次激烈的戰役，遭遇戰和圍攻不計在內。

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.

亨利兩次做了愛德華的階下囚，愛德華也給亨利俘獲過。當爭吵只是起因於個人的問題時，戰爭的命運和全國人民的好惡很難捉摸，因此亨利被人從監獄送回王宮，而愛德華則被迫從王宮逃往外國；但是，因為好惡的突然轉變難以持久，人們又把亨利逐下王位，召回愛德華來繼任。議會總是倒向力量最強大的一邊的。

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.

這個鬥爭從亨利六世當政時開始，到了統一王室的亨利七世手裏還沒有完全停止。這一時期包括六十七年，即從1422年起至1489年止【亨利七世於1485 年即位時，娶約克王室伊麗沙白為後，兩個家族的聯婚結束了薔薇戰爭。——譯者】。

In short, monarchy and succession have laid (not this or that kingdom only) but the world in blood and ashes. 'Ties a form of government which the word of God bears testimony against, and blood will attend it.

總之，君主政體和世襲制度不僅使某個王國而且使整個世界陷於血泊和瓦礫之中。這是《聖經》所反對的政權形式，所以免不了要發生流血。

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 round. 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 England, a man would be puzzled to know what his business is.

假如我們考察一下國王所做的工作，我們就會發現，在有些國家中他們可以說是沒有幹什麽工作的；在混過了對自己沒有樂趣、對國家沒有好處的一生以後，他們退出了舞臺，讓後繼的人去走同樣虛度光陰的道路。在君主專制國家：民政和軍事的全副重擔置於國王一身；以色列人在要求立一個國王的時候曾經提出申請，希望“有王治理我們，統領我們，為我們爭戰”。但像在英國這樣的國家中，國王既非士師，又非元帥，委實叫人很難了解他究竟幹什麽工作。

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 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 England sickly, but because monarchy hath poisoned the republic, the crown hath engrossed the commons?

任何政體愈接近共和，需要國王做的工作就愈少。要給英國的政體想一個適當的名稱，多少有些困難。威廉·梅雷迪思爵士稱它為共和國；可是在它目前的狀態，它是不配得到這種名稱的，因為，國王由於有權任意安排一切官職而產生的貪汙勢力，實際上已經獨占了政權，侵蝕了下議院（政體中的共和部分）的效能，以致英國的政體差不多像法國或西班牙的一樣，純粹是君主政體了。人們如果不了解名稱的真實含義，決不會輕易表示贊同。英國人引以自豪的，不是英國政體的君主的部分，而是共和的部分，也就是從他們自己的團體中選出下議院議員的那種自由——並且我們很容易看出，當共和失效時，奴役便接踵而來。英國政體之所以有毛病，只是因為君權已經毒害了共和；國王已經壟斷了下議院。

In England a 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.

在英國，一個國王所能做的事情，往往不外乎是挑起戰爭和賣官鬻爵；直率地說，這是使國家陷於貧窮和制造紛爭。一個人每年伸手拿八十萬鎊，而且還受人崇拜，真是一樁好買賣！對於社會，同時在上帝的眼中，一個普通的誠實人要比從古到今所有加冕的壞蛋更有價值。

THOUGHTS ON THE PRESENT STATE OF AMERICAN AFFAIRS.

對北美目前形勢的意見

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.

在以下幾頁，我將僅僅提供一些簡單的事實、明顯的論據和常識。我要求讀者作好準備的，只是擺脫偏見和成見，讓理智和感情獨自做出判斷，持真守樸，不受現時代的拘束而盡量擴大自己的見解。

Volumes have been written on the subject of the struggle between England and America. Men of all ranks have embarked in thee 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 the contest; the appeal was the choice of the king, and the continent hath accepted the challenge.

關於英美之間的鬥爭這個題目，已經出版過好多卷書籍。各階級的人們出於不同的動機和抱著各種目的，參加了這場爭論；但是一切都毫無效果，現在論戰已經結束了。作為最後手段的武力決定著這場爭執：訴諸武力的辦法是由英王選擇的，北美大陸已經接受了這個挑戰。

It hath been reported of the late Mr. Pelham (who though' 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.

據說，已故的貝爾哈姆先生（他雖然是個幹練的大臣，卻並不是沒有過錯）因為他的策略只是臨時的性質而在下院受到攻擊時，他回答說，“它們在我活著的時候總還可以推行。”如果殖民地人民在目前的鬥爭中都抱有這種要不得的膽怯思想，後代子孫是會以厭惡的心情來想起他們祖先的名字的。

The sun never shined on a cause of greater worth. \'Ties not the affair of a city, a country, a province, or a kingdom, but of a continent--of at least one eighth part of the habitable globe. 'Ties 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 honor. 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.

太陽從來沒有照耀過一個更足稱道的事業。這不是牽涉到一城、一州、一省或一個王國；而是牽涉到一個大陸——至少占地球上可以居住的地方的八分之一。這不是一日、一年或一個時代的事情；實際上子子孫孫都牽入這場鬥爭，並且甚至永久地或多或少受目前行動的影響。現在是北美大陸的團結一致、信義和榮譽的播種時期。今天的一點小小裂痕，將如用針尖在一棵小楝樹的嫩皮上刻出的一個名字一樣；這個傷痕將隨著樹木擴大，在後代子孫看到的時候它已經變成幾個十分醒目的大字。

By referring the matter from argument to arms, a new \jar 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.

由於問題從爭論轉到用武力對付，一個政治的新紀元開始了，一種新的思想方法已經產生了。4 月19 日以前，即戰爭爆發【1775年4月18日夜間，英國軍隊從波士頓出動，企圖奪取北美愛國者存放在康科德的軍需品，並逮捕當時確知其待在萊克星頓附近的薩姆·亞當和約翰·漢考克。在保羅·勒維耳和威廉·戴維斯的號召下，武裝起來的公民出來迎擊英軍，於4月19日在萊克星頓和康科德一帶發生了戰鬥。北美民兵隊的戰士徹底粉碎了英國軍隊。敵方原有的兵力只有三分之二左右活著回到波士頓。到處可以聽到槍聲的射擊，使托馬斯·潘恩相信不可能再同大不列顛和解了。——譯者】以前的一切計劃、建議等等，都成了明日黃花；這些東西雖然當時是合適的，現在卻一無用處，可以束置高閣了。當時對問題各執一詞的人的意見，終於歸結到同樣的一點，即同英國聯合；雙方唯一的差別在於實施這一主張的方法；一方建議采用武力，一方建議利用友誼；但到目前為止的實際情況是，前者已經失敗，後者已經不再發生影響。

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 dependant on Great- Britain. To examine that connation 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.

既然對於和解的利益已經談論很多，而它像美夢一樣已經消逝，並未使我們有何收獲，那麽我們就當然應該考察一下論證的相反一面，稍稍探究一下這些殖民地在同大不列顛保持聯系並處於從屬地位的條件下，現在和以後將永遠蒙受的許多物質損失。要根據自然原理與常識來考察那種聯系和從屬地位，看看我們如果分離的話必須依靠什麽，如果處於從屬地位的話可以有什麽指望。

I have heard it asserted by some, that as America hath flourished under her former connation with Great-Britain, that the same connation 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.

我聽見有人硬是這樣說：既然北美在以前同大不列顛發生聯系時曾經繁榮過，那麽為了它將來的幸福，同樣的聯系是必要的，並且總會產生同樣的效果。沒有任何論證比這更錯誤的了。你還不如說，因為一個孩子是吃奶長大的，所以他永遠不該吃肉，或者說，我們一生的開頭二十年應該成為第二個二十年的先例。可是這也是強辭奪理的說法；因為我可以斷然地說，假如當初沒有一個歐洲強國照顧它的話，北美照樣能夠繁榮，或許還更興旺。它賴以致富的貿易，屬於生活必需品一類，只要歐洲人還有飲食的習慣，它總不會沒有市場。

But she has protected us, say some. That she hath 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.

可是有人說，這個歐洲國家曾經保護過我們。不錯，它曾把我們放在它的壟斷操縱之下，而它花我們的錢和它自己的錢來保衛北美大陸，這也是事實；不過，出於同樣的動機，也就是說為了貿易和統治權，它也會保衛土耳其的。

Alas, we have been long led away by ancient prejudices, and made large artifices 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.

唉！我們長期以來受到歷史久遠的偏見的迷惑，為迷信作了很大的犧牲。我們曾經自誇受大不列顛的保護，不去註意它的動機是利益而不是情誼；它並沒有為了我們的原故保護我們免受我們敵人的侵犯，而是為了它自己的原故防禦它的敵人，為了任何其他原故防禦那些與我們並無爭執的人，並且為了同樣的原故防禦那些將會經常與我們作對的人。

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 connations.

如果英國不放棄它對北美的自作主張的要求，北美就得擺脫這種從屬地位，萬一法國和西班牙同英國發生戰爭，我們可以同它們保持和好關系。上次漢諾威王朝的戰爭所造成的苦難，應該提醒我們來反對我們同英國的種種聯系。

It hath 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 round-about way of proving relationship, but it is the nearest and only true way of proving enemy ship, 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.

最近國會裏有人硬說，各殖民地除通過親國以外，彼此沒有直接關系，也就是說，賓夕法尼亞、新澤西等等是通過英國才產生的姊妹殖民地；這當然是證明彼此有關系存在的一個轉彎抹角的說法，但這也是證明敵意（或者敵對狀態，如果我可以這麽說）的最簡捷而唯一真實的說法。法國和西班牙從來不是、也許將永遠不是我們身為美洲人的敵人，而只是作為大不列顛臣民的敵人。

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 Jesuitical adopted by the king and his parasites, with a low political 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.

可是有人說英國是親國。那麽它的所作所為就格外丟臉了。豺狼尚不食其子，野蠻人也不同親屬作戰；因此，那種說法如果正確的話，倒是對它的譴責；可是那種說法恰巧是不正確的，或者只是部分地正確，而英王和他的一夥幫兇陰險地采用的親國或母國這個詞兒，含有卑鄙的天主教的意圖，想要偷偷地影響我們心地老實的弱點。歐洲，而不是英國，是北美的親國。這個新世界曾經成為歐洲各地受迫害的酷愛公民自由與宗教自由的人士的避難所。他們逃到這裏來，並不是要避開母親的撫慰，而是要避開吃人怪物的虐待；把最初的移民逐出鄉裏的那種暴政，還在追逐著他們的後代，這話對英國來說至今仍然是適用的。

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.

在世界的這個廣大地區，我們忘記了三百六十英裏的狹窄範圍（英國的長度），更大規模地傳播我們的友誼；我們主張同歐洲每一個基督教徒保持兄弟般的關系，並以這種豁達的胸襟而感到自豪。

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 neighbor; 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. county-man; 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.

來觀察一下我們在擴大自己對全世界人士的友誼時怎樣始終不懈地逐步克服地方偏見的勢力，那是很有趣的。一個生在英國劃分為教區的任何城市的人，自然只會和他同一教區的人保持最密切的聯系（因為他們的利益在很多方面是共同的），並用街坊的名稱來加以識別；如果他在離家不過幾英裏之外遇到這位街坊，他就丟掉一條街道的狹窄觀念，稱他為同鄉；如果他走出郡的範圍，在別的郡裏碰見他，他便忘掉街道和城市的較小的劃分，管他叫大同鄉，即同郡人；但如果他們在國外旅行，偶然在法國或歐洲任何其他部分見面，他們腦子裏的地方觀念就會擴大到同是英國人這一想法。依此類推，在北美或在世界其他任何地區相遇的一切歐洲人，都是大同鄉：因為英國、荷蘭、德國、瑞典等等，同整個世界比起來，在較大規模上所處的地位，正和在較小規模上劃分的街道、城市與郡的地位一樣；那些區分範圍太窄，不合北美大陸上的人們的心理。甚至在本州（賓夕法尼亞）的居民中，英國人的後代不到三分之一。因此，我指斥這種僅用之於英國的所謂親國或母國偽措辭是錯誤的、自私的、狹隘的和小器的。

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.

可是，即使我們承認自己都是英國人的後裔，這有沒有意義呢？沒有。英國現在既然是一個公開的敵人，那它就取消了其他一切的名義和頭銜：說什麽和解是我們的責任，那是滑稽透頂的說法。現在這個王室的第一任國王（威廉一世）是法國人，英國目前的貴族半數是法國人的後裔；因此，根據同樣的推論方法，英國應該受法國的統治。

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 does the expression mean any thing; for this continent would never suffer itself to be drained of inhabitants, to support the British arms in Asia, Africa, or Europe.

關於英國和殖民地之間的同心協力問題，人們已經談得很多了，說什麽聯合起來它們就可以同世界各國相抗爭。但這僅是一種推測；戰爭的命運是捉摸不定的，那些話本身也毫無價值；因為這個大陸決不願意讓人把它的居民抽光，去支援英國在亞洲、非洲或歐洲的軍隊的。

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.

其次，同世界各國抗爭與我們又有什麽關系？我們的目的是通商，如果妥善從事，它將為我們贏得整個歐洲的和平與友誼；因為整個歐洲所關心的，是使北美成為一個自由港。它的貿易將永遠是一種屏障，而它在金銀方面出產不豐，可以保證它不受外人侵略。

I challenge the warmest advocate for reconciliation, to show, 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.

我要求最熱心倡議和解的人指出北美大陸由於同大不列顛聯合而能獲得的一件好處。我重復這個要求；照我看來是一件好處也得不到的。我們的谷物將在歐洲任何的市場上順利出售，我們的進口貨物一定要在我們願意購買的地方成交。

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.

但是，我們由於同英國聯合而遭受的危害和損失是不勝枚舉的；我們對全體人類以及對我們自己的責任教導我們要拒絕這種同盟：因為，對大不列顛的任何屈從或依附，都會立刻把這個大陸卷入歐洲的各種戰爭和爭執，使我們同一些國家發生衝突，而那些國家本來是願意爭取我們的友誼的，我們對它們也是沒有憤怒或不滿的理由的。既然歐洲是我們的貿易市場，我們就應當同歐洲的任何部分保持不偏不倚的關系。北美的真正利益在於避開歐洲的各種紛爭，如果它由於對英國處於從屬地位，變成英國政治天秤上的一個小小的法碼，它就永遠不能置身於紛爭之外。

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 Britain. 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.

歐洲王國林立，不可能長期保持和平狀態，一旦英國和任何外國之間爆發戰爭，北美由於它同英國的關系，在貿易上一定會遭到毀滅。下一次的戰爭也許結果不會像上一次一樣，而如果有所不同的話，現在鼓吹和解的人那時就會希望分離了，因為在那種情況下中立將是比兵艦更安全的護航艦。

Every thing that is right or natural pleads for separation. The blood of the slain, the weeping voice of nature cries, 'This 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.

所有正確的或合理的事情都為分離作辯護。被殺死的人的鮮血和造化的啜泣聲在喊著：現在是分手的時候了。甚至上帝把英國放在遠離北美的位置上，也順理成章地和有力地證明出，英國對美國享有權能這一點，決不是上蒼的意圖。從發現北美大陸的時期上說，也能增加這個論據的力量，而當時各國移民的分布情況則使這一論據更具有說服力。宗教改革先於美洲的發現，仿佛是上帝慈悲為懷。有意為以後幾年受迫害的人們開辟一個避難所似的，那時本國既不會給他們友誼，也不會給他們安全。

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.

大不列顛對這個大陸的權能，是一個遲早必然要結束的政權形式：一個認真考慮問題的人會痛苦地堅決相信，他稱之為“現在的政體”的這種體制只是臨時性的，在這種心情的支配下，他瞻望前途，決不會得到真正的快樂。我們身為父母，既然知道這個政權不會有很長的壽命，足以保障我們可能傳給後代的任何東西，心裏也決不會高興：用一種簡單的論證方法來說，既然我們會使下一輩人負債，我們就應該自己擔當起來，否則我們對待他們的態度就顯得卑鄙而可憐了。為了正確地發現我們的責任範圍，我們應當照顧我們的子孫，把我們的職責地位在人生中更推進幾年；那樣高的位置將使我們看到一種被目前一些恐懼和偏見所掩蔽的形勢。

Though I would carefully avoid giving unnecessary offence, 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.

雖然我願意當心地避免作不必要的攻訐，可是我倒認為，凡是擁護和解論調的人都可以歸入下列幾類。私心很重的不可靠的人，腦子糊塗的愚鈍的人，不願了解事物的抱有偏見的人，還有一批過分重視歐洲世界的穩健的人；而這最後的一類，由於考慮欠妥，將比其他三類對北美大陸造成更多的災難。

It is the good fortune of many to live distant from the scene of sorrow; the evil is not sufficiently 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 which 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 out to 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 offences 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, and 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 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.

許多人住的地點，離目前發生不幸事件的現場很遠，這是他們的運氣；禍害並沒有十足地降臨到他們的門口，使他們感到北美的全部財產岌岌可危。可是讓我們的想象力把我們帶到波士頓去一會兒吧；那個充滿著災難的地點會教我們學得聰明一些，並叮囑我們永遠同一種我們不能加以信任的政權斷絕關系。不過在幾個月以前，那個不幸城市的居民們還過著安樂和富裕的生活，可是他們現在除呆在那裏挨餓或出外求乞而外【波士頓的居民曾將價值一千八百英鎊的三百四十二箱茶葉投入海中，英國議會為了鎮壓這些居民，采取了一系列的措施，即所謂關於停止憲法保障的一些法案：從1774年6月1日起生效的波士頓港法，在東印度公司的損失得到賠償以前，禁止一切船只駛入該城的港口。第二個法案規定，凡被控在履行職責時犯有不法罪行的皇家官吏，得在其他殖民地和英國審訊。第三個法案規定英國軍隊駐在波士頓，而第四個法案則授予總督以任命地方會議代表。限制各城舉行會議、照顧陪審員的任命等權力。潘恩所引證的波士頓公戾的情況並沒有誇大。根據當時的統計，到1775年5月底，波士頓約有十五萬人瀕於餓死。——譯者】，沒有別的辦法。他們如果繼續留在城裏，就有遭受朋友們的炮火轟擊的危險，他們如果離開，就要被軍隊洗劫；在目前的情況下，他們是一些沒有超度希望的囚徒，在實行總攻擊來救助他們的時候，他們將暴露在雙方軍隊的猛烈炮火之下。秉性遲鈍的人多少有些忽視大不列顛對我們的攻擊，仍舊非常樂觀，動輒喊道：來吧，來吧，縱然發生這一切事情，我們還是可以和好的。可是請你們考察考察人類的感情和感覺：把和解的主張根據自然的標準來衡量一下，然後告訴我，你們以後是否還能熱愛、尊敬並忠心耿耿地替那種已經在你們的土地上殺人放火的政權服務？假如這一切事情你們不能做到，那麽你們不過是掩耳盜鈴，由於你們的延誤而使後代子孫遭到毀滅。你們既不敬愛英國，那你們將來和英國的聯系一定是被迫的和不自然的，並且因為它是僅僅根據目前的權宜之計而形成的，它不久就會回復到比當初更不幸的老路上去。如果你們說，你們還能容忍那些侵犯，那麽我要請教，你們的房屋有沒有被燒掉？你們的財產是否曾在你們的面前被破壞？你們的妻兒還有床鋪睡覺、有面包充饑嗎？你們的父母兒女曾否遭他們的毒手，而你們自己是不是在顛沛流離中死裏逃生的呢？如果你們沒有這些遭遇，你們就不能很好地體會那些有過這種遭遇的人的心情。但如果你們遭了殃，還能同兇手握手言歡，那麽你們便不配稱為丈夫、父親、朋友或愛人，並且不管你們這一輩子的地位或頭銜如何，你們有著膽小鬼的心腸和馬屁鬼的精神。

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 does 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.

這不是火上加油或誇大其辭，而是用自然所認為正當的情感和感情來檢驗這些問題，如果缺少那種情感和感情，我們就不能克盡人生的社會職責，也不能享受人生的種種幸福。我的意思並不是要揭露恐怖的景象來挑起復仇的情緒，而是要喚醒我們，不再優柔寡斷，醉生夢死，這樣才能毅然決然地追求某種確定的目標。如果北美不是由於延誤和膽怯而自陷於被征服者的地位，英國或歐洲是征服不了北美的。目前這個冬季如果利用得當，可以抵得上一個時代，但如果磋跎和玩忽，整個的大陸將同遭不幸；只要如此可貴和有用的季節在一個人的手裏白白浪費掉，那麽不論他是誰、他擔任什麽職務或他住在什麽地方，任何處分他都是罪有應得。

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 now a fallacious dream. Nature hath deserted the connation, 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."

認為這個大陸可以長期受任何外來勢力的支配，這種想法是悖理的，違反事物常規的，也是不合歷代先例的。甚至英國最有自信的人也不這樣想。在這個時候，人們即使竭盡智慧，要不談獨立而保證這個大陸茍安一年，也是辦不到的。和解在現今是個荒謬的夢想。造化既已拋棄這種聯系，人力又不能有所補益。因為，正如密爾頓很精辟地表達的，“在不共戴天之仇的傷口已經裂得這樣深的地方，永遠產生不出真正的和解。”

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.

每一種爭取和平的溫和的方法都已經失效。我們的歷次懇求已經被鄙夷地一口拒絕；這使我們相信，要算反復的請願最能鼓勵國王們的自負和證實他們的頑固——而且只有那種做法最能助長歐洲國王們的專制。丹麥和瑞典就是很好的例子。因此，既然抵抗才有效力，那麽為了上帝，就讓我們達到最後的獨立，不讓下一代人在遭受侮辱的毫無意義的父子關系的名義下趨於滅亡吧。

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.

要說他們不會再想那樣幹了，這是單憑想象而沒有根據的；我們對於取消印花稅法【指英國政府在1765年頒布的“印花稅法”，目的在於彌補英國由於征服加拿大（1758—1760）而帶來的支出。——譯者】曾經抱有這樣的想法，然而一兩年的工夫就打破了我們的迷夢；否則我們也可以認為那些已經打敗的國家永遠不會再尋釁了。

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.

至於說到統治的問題，英國是無法以公平合理的態度來對待這個大陸的：它的事務不久就會十分紛繁，不是一個離我們這樣遠、對我們這樣無知的國家用種種權宜之計所能經管的，因為如果他們不能征服我們，他們便無法統治我們。為了一件事情或一項申請，要經常奔波三四千英裏，為了批復要等待四五個月，而得到批復以後又需要五六個月來加以解釋，這種情況不出幾年工夫就會被看作是荒唐和幼稚的行徑。如果過去有一段時間它是適當的，那麽現在便是它不再存在的適當時機了。

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.

幾個不能自衛的小小的島嶼，是政府【在後來的某些版本中作“一些王國”。——原編者】把它們置於保護之下的適當的對象；但是認為一個大陸可以永遠受一個島嶼的統治，那就不免有些荒謬。在自然界從來沒有使衛星大於它的主星的先例；既然英國和北美在彼此的關系上違反自然的一般規律，那麽顯而易見它們是屬於不同的體系的。英國屬於歐洲，北美屬於它本身。

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.

我並不是出於驕傲、黨派或憤懣的動機來擁護分離和獨立的主張的；我在良心上清楚地和絕對的相信，這樣做是符合這個大陸的真正利益的；任何缺少真正利益的事情只是一種雜湊，不能提供悠久的幸福，——這是讓我們的子孫遭受殺戮，並在多出一點力量、多跨進一步就可使這個大陸成為全世界的榮耀的關頭退縮不前。

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.

既然英國絲毫沒有表現出要求和解的意思，我們可以確信，所能獲取的條件是不值得北美大陸接受的，或者所能達到的目的是抵不上我們已經付出的生命和財產的損失的。

The object, contended for, ought always to bear some just proportion to the expense. The removal of North, or the whole detestable junta, 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 the 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.

所爭取的目的應該總是同所花費的代價具有某種正確的比例才好。諾斯的撤職【指大臣諾斯由於對北美各殖民政策的失敗而在1782年被撤職。——譯者】①或整個可惡的私黨的解散，是抵不上我們所付出的這樣大的犧牲的。如果我們所反對的一切議會的法案真能廢除的話，那麽貿易的暫時中斷給我們帶來的損失，就足以抵消這些法案的廢除；但是，如果整個大陸必須拿起武器來，如果人人都必須成為軍人，那我們就不值得光是去反對一個卑鄙的內閣了。假如我們所爭取的只是一些法案的廢除，那麽我們花費的代價就未免太大；因為，按照公正的估計，為了法律也像為了土地一樣的付出一次班克山【波士頓的山名，1775年6月17日曾作戰於此。——譯者】的代價，是天大的傻事。我一向認為這個大陸的獨立，是遲早一定會實現的一件大事，同樣地，根據最近大陸向成熟階段迅速發展的情況來看，這件大事決不會離得很遠。因此，在戰爭已經爆發的時候，我們不值得為了這樣一個問題發生爭論，這個問題如果我們不認真爭辯的話，最後也定然會由時間來加以補救的：否則這就等於是向法院控訴一個租賃期剛滿的佃戶，要求制止他侵犯產權，因而在訟案中傾家蕩產一樣。在不祥的1775年4月19日以前，我本人要算是最渴望和解的了，但是一聽到那天所發生的事件，我便永遠否定了那個冷酷的、乖戾的英國法老【古埃及國王的稱呼，這裏借喻英國的專制國王。——譯者】，並且鄙視那個壞蛋，因為他雖然僭稱為“人民之父”，卻能夠冷酷地聽取他們遭到屠殺的消息，靈魂上沾滿他們的鮮血而酣然入夢。

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.

可是，如果承認問題已經解決，那將產生怎樣的結果呢？我可以回答說，結果是北美大陸的毀滅。有幾層理由可以說明。

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 shown 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 that 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."

第一、各種統治的權柄還掌握在英王的手裏，他會否決這個大陸的全部立法。既然他已經暴露自己是自由的勢不兩立的敵人，顯示出對於專制政權的無限渴望，那麽他是不是當然要對這些殖民地的人民說，除非經我同意，不準你們制定任何法律！？北美是否還有哪一位居民這樣無知，竟不知道按照所謂現行的政體規定，除經國王批準外，這個大陸不能制定任何法律呢？是否有誰這樣愚笨，竟看不出（根據所發生的情況來判斷）他除去那種能夠迎合他的意圖的法律以外，不會讓我們在這裏制定任何法律呢？北美沒有法律，或順從英國為我們制定的法律，實際上都可以奴役我們。在問題已經解決（有人這樣說）以後，難道還會懷疑國王不一定運用全部權力來盡量鎮壓和抑制這個大陸嗎？如果不前進，我們就會後退，或者永遠發生爭論，或者永遠可笑地提出請求。我們所已經達到的強大程度，不是英王希望我們達到的，他此後不會力圖削弱我們嗎？總括一句話，一個嫉妒我們繁榮昌盛的政權是否宜於來統治我們呢？凡是對這問題表示否定意見的人是個狄立黨員，因為獨立自主的問題不外乎意味著：究竟是我們將自己制定我們的法律，還是讓這個大陸的目前和將來最大的敵人——英王來吩咐我們，除我所喜歡的法律以外不準有任何法律。

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 show 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.

你會說，可是英王在英國是有否決權的；那裏的人民不經他的同意不能制定任何法律。按正當的和正常的道理來講，一個二十一歲的青年（往往有過這種事情）居然可以對幾百萬比他年長和聰明的人說，“我禁止你們的某一決議變成法律”，這是十分可笑的。但是在目前情況下我不願意作這種答復，雖然我還要繼續揭露那種說法的荒唐，而只是回答說：英國是英王的權利所在地而北美並非如此這一點，形成截然不同的情況。英王在這裏擁有否決權的危害性，要比在英國大十倍；因為在那裏，對於一個盡力充實英國國防的議案，他是不會不予同意的，但在北美，他就決不會讓這樣的議案通過。北美在英國的政治體系中不過居於次要的地位。這個國家的利益只有在適合英國本身的目標時它才會加以顧及。因此，它本身的利害關系引導它在任何不能增進它利益的場合盡力遏制我們利益的增長，或者至少要進行阻撓。從已經發生的情況來看，在這樣一個間接的政府之下，不久我們的處境就一定夠好的啦！人們並不會由於換了一個名字便從敵人轉變為朋友。為了指出那種和解的主張現在是危險的，我敢斷言，英王由於想恢復他在各個領地的統治地位，現在所采取的政策將是廢除那些法令；其目的在於利用陰謀詭計，最後完成他在短期內通過武力和暴力所無法完成的事情。和解與毀滅是密切相關的。

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 dispose of their effects, and quit the continent.

第二、我們能夠希望得到的哪怕是最好的條件，也不外乎是一種臨時的辦法，或者一種受保護的政權，這種政權在殖民地達到成人年齡時就不能再存在了，因此，總的形勢和局面同時也將是不安定的、沒有前途的。有產的移民決不願意到這樣一個國家裏來，這個國家的政體是朝不保夕的，它每天都有發生騷動和混亂的危險；現有的這些居民將抓住機會來處置他們的產業，離開這個大陸。

But the most powerful of all arguments, is, that nothing but independence, 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 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.

但一切論據中最有力的是，除了獨立（即聯合殖民地的政權形式）以外，再沒有別的方式能維持大陸的治安，使它不受內戰的侵害。我恐怕萬一現在同英國和解，很可能接踵而來的是某處發生暴動，其後果也許遠比英國的一切惡意來得可怕。

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 independence, 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 connation than from independence. 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 a man, sensible of injuries, I could never relish the doctrine of reconciliation, or consider myself bound thereby.

成千上萬的人在英國人的野蠻行動下遭到毀滅；（還有成千上萬的人也許會碰到同樣的命運。）那些人的感情同我們這些沒有受難的人是不一樣的。他們現在僅有的財產是自由：他們以前享有的東西已在爭取自由的鬥爭中犧牲了，現在他們既然不再有什麽東西可以喪失，也就十分鄙視屈服。其次，殖民地對英國政府的一般情緒將類似一個接近成人年齡的青年的情緒，他們不會對它有何顧慮。而一個不能維持治安的政府根本就不是政府，在那種情況下我們拿出錢來是冤枉的。請問，萬一在和解以後的第二天國內發生暴動，那麽力量只表現在紙面上的英國，能夠有什麽作為呢？我聽見有些人說（我相信其中很多人是沒有經過思考的），他們害怕獨立，唯恐獨立以後會發生內戰。沒有經過考慮的想法總很少是真正正確的，這裏也不例外，因為一個暫時彌補的關系比起獨立來能夠產生多至十倍的值得擔心的事。我站在受害者的地位斷然聲明，如果我被人從房子裏和家裏趕出來，我的財產遭到破壞，我的環境受到損害，那麽作為一個不甘受辱的男子漢，我決不能同意和解的主張，也不能認為我自己因此就必須贊同這個主張。

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.

各殖民地已經表現了良好秩序和服從大陸政府的精神，這種精神是足以使得每一個明白事理的人對那領導機構感到放心和滿意的。如果有誰害怕一個殖民地會力求比另一殖民地占據更優越的地位，那麽他只有根據真正幼稚和可笑的理由，才能為他的恐懼找到口實。

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 Swisserland 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 independence, 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.

既然彼此沒有差別，就不會產生地位優劣的問題；完全的平等不是誘人走入歧途的導因。歐洲各共和國現在都是（而且我們可以說經常是）和睦的。荷蘭和瑞士無論對內或是對外都沒有戰爭。的確，君主國家是決不會長期平安無事的，王座本身便是對國內不逞之徒的誘惑力量；經常伴隨著王權的那種極度的驕傲和橫暴，在有些事情上容易同外國鬧成決裂，而在同樣的情況下，一個共和政府由於以比較自然的原則為組織基礎，卻能克服那種錯誤。如果真正有理由來擔心獨立的話，那是因為還沒有定下計劃的緣的。人們看不清他們的出路。因此，作為研討這件事情的開端，我提出下列幾點意見；同時我毫不自誇地承認，我本人只認為這些意見可以成為引起一些更好的建議的手段罷了。如果許多個人的淩亂思想能夠被收集起來，它們就往往會構成一種材料，由聰明幹練的人來把它變成有用的東西。

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.

各殖民地的會議應每年召開，只應該有一個議長。代表應更求平均，他們所處理的應該完全是國內問題，並受大陸會議的節制。

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 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.

每一殖民地應分成六個、八個或十個大小適當的區，每區都推出若幹代表參加大陸會議，因此每一殖民地將至少派出代表三十人。大陸會議的全體代表將至少為三百九十人。每屆會議應舉行代表大會，用下列方法選舉一人為議長。當代表開會時，由全部十三個殖民地抽簽抽出一個殖民地，然後由會議從該州代表中票選一人為議長。在下屆大陸會議，僅從十二個殖民地中抽出一個，上屆已產生議長的那個殖民地不在抽簽之列，以後依此程序進行，直至十三個殖民地統統抽到為止。為了保證所通過的法律都十分正當，不少於五分之三的人數才能稱為多數。在這樣一個公正地組成的政權之下，誰要是想挑唆不和，那一定是投到魔鬼的懷抱裏去了。

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.

但是，既然這件事情最初必須由誰做起，或者怎樣做法，乃是很傷腦筋的事，既然看來似乎由某種介於統治者和被統治者之間、即大陸會議和人民之間的團體來著手是最合情理的，那就讓一個聯合殖民地會議以下列方式和按照下列宗旨召開吧。

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 counselors, and the whole, being empowered by the people, will have a truly legal authority.

委員會包括由大陸會議推出的委員二十六人，即每一殖民地二人。每一州議會下院或州的制憲會議產生委員二人；每州由全體人民中產生代表五人，代表全州並對全州負責，這些代表由州內各地宜於參加選舉的盡量多的有資格的選民在各州首府或首邑選出：或者，如果比較方便，代表也可在其中兩三處人口最多的部分產生。在這樣召開的會議中，將結合起經辦事務的兩個最重大的要素，即知識和力量。大陸會議、各州議會下院或制憲會議的成員們，由於對國家事務已積有經驗，將成為幹練而能發揮作用的議員，而整個會議既經人民授權，就具有真正法定的權力。

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 Charta 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 conformable 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.

在議員集議的時候，應該讓他們擬草大陸憲章或聯合殖民地憲章（以回答所謂英國大憲章）；確定選舉大陸會議議員、州議會下院議員的人數和方式，以及它們開會的日期，劃定它們之間的行政和司法的界線：經常要記牢，我們的力量是大陸的而不是州的。要按照良心的指示，為所有的人獲致自由與財產，主要是信教的自由，以及憲章所必需規定的其他事項。此後，上述會議應隨即解散，並應依據上述憲章選出一些人來，暫時做這個大陸的立法者和地方長官：願上帝保佑他們的平安和幸福。亞門。

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 Dragonets. "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, which should discover a mode of government that contained the greatest sum of individual happiness, with the least national expense.Dragonetti on virtue and rewards."--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.

如果此後為了這個或某種相類的目的委任一些人的話，我要把賢明的政治學家德拉戈內蒂的下面一段語錄奉送給他們。“政治家的科學”，他說，“在於確定幸福與自由的精義。凡是能夠發現一種使國家花費最小代價為個人謀取最大幸福的政體的人，是值得永世感恩的。”（德拉戈內蒂：《論德行與報酬》【指意大利法學家德拉戈內蒂·季亞青托（1789—1871）的著作：Levertuedipremi.——譯者】）有人說，可是北美的國王在哪兒呢？朋友，我要告訴你，他在天上統治著，不像大不列顛皇家畜生那樣的殘害人類。但是，如果莊嚴地規定有一天要宣布憲章，希望我們甚至在世俗的德行方面也不要露出缺點來；讓發表的憲章以神法和《聖經》為根據；讓我們為憲章加冕，從而使世人知道我們是否贊成君主政體，知道北美的法律就是國王。因為，在專制政府中國王便是法律，同樣地，在自由國家中法律便應該成為國王，而且不應該有其他的情況。但為了預防以後發生濫用至高權威的流弊，那就不妨在典禮結束時推翻國王這一稱號，把它分散給有權享受這種稱號的人民。

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 * Massively 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, what relief can Britain give? Ere she could hear the news, the fatal business might be done; and we suffering like the wretched Britons under the oppression of the Conqueror. Ye that oppose independence 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?

組織我們自己的政府，乃是我們自然的權利。當一個人認真考慮到人事動蕩時，他就會深深地相信，我們盡力以冷靜審慎的態度來組織我們自己的政權形式，要比把這樣一個重大的問題交給時間和機會去支配，來得無限地聰明和安全。如果我們現在不走這一步，也許以後會出現一個馬薩涅洛【托馬斯·阿涅洛，又名馬薩涅洛，是那不勒斯的漁夫，他在公共市場上鼓動同胞，以反對當時占有該地的西班牙人的壓迫，並慫恿他們起義，結果他在一天中間便成了國王。——作者】，他在掌握了民眾的動蕩情緒以後，可以糾集亡命和不滿之徒，自己攫取政權，最後像洪水一樣把北美大陸的各種自由權利一掃而空。萬一北美的政權又落到英國的手裏，動搖的局勢也會引誘某一個不顧一切的冒險家來碰碰運氣；在這種情況下，英國能夠給我們什麽幫助呢？不等它聽到消息，那個十分不幸的事件已經完成；而我們自己就會像處於征服者壓迫下的可憐的不列顛人一樣地受苦了。你們這些現在反對獨立的人，你們不知道自己在幹什麽：你們讓政權的位置空著，從而為無窮的虐政敞開門戶。千千萬萬人認為光榮的，是把煽動印第安人和黑人起來消滅我們的那種野蠻兇惡的勢力逐出大陸；那種殘酷的行為有雙重罪惡，它殘忍地對待我們，奸詐地對待他們。對於有些人，我們的理智禁止我們加以信任，我們備受損傷的感情叮囑我們加以憎惡，如果同這些人侈談什麽友誼，那是胡塗和愚蠢的。我們和他們之間殘留的一點因緣每天都在損耗著；難道有什麽理由可以希望，在關系消滅的同時，感情反會增加，或者當我們有十倍於過去的更大更多的事情要爭論的時候，我們倒反會更加表示同意嗎？

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 forgives the murders of Britain? The Almighty hath implanted in us these inextinguishable 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 from the earth, or have only a casual existence was 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.

你們這些勸告我們要重視融洽與和解的人，你們能不能把已經消逝的時間重新交還給我們呢？你們能不能把過去的純潔還給娼妓呢？你們要使英國與北美和解，也是辦不到的。現在最後的一根紐帶已經斷了，英國人正在用各種言論反對我們。存在著天理所不容的侵害和侮辱；如果天理會寬恕的話，它就不成其為天理了。既然一個丈夫不能寬恕別人強奸他的妻子，北美大陸也就不能寬恕英國的那些殺人兇手。上帝已經賦予我們以決心做有益而聰明的事情的不可遏制的心情。這種心情是我們心中的上帝形象的守護神。它們使我們不同於一群普通的動物。假如我們不能愛憎分明，社會契約就會解體，公道就會在世上絕跡，或者不過偶然存在。假如我們所感受的侮辱不能激怒我們起來要求伸張正義，盜賊和殺人兇手將多半逍遙法外。

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 overrun with oppression. Freedom hath been hunted round the globe. Asia, and Africa, has 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.

啊！你們這些熱愛人類的人！你們這些不但敢反對暴政而且敢反對暴君的人，請站到前面來！舊世界遍地盛行著壓迫。自由到處遭到追逐。亞洲和非洲早就已經把她逐出。歐洲把她當作異已分子，而英國已經對她下了逐客令。啊！接待這個逃亡者，及時地為人類準備一個避難所吧！

OF THE PRESENT ABILITY OF AMERICA, WITH SOME MISCELLANEOUS REFLEXIONS.

論北美目前的能力：附帶談一些雜感

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 shown less judgment, than in endeavoring to describe, what we call, the ripeness or fitness of the Continent for independence.

無論在英國或北美，凡是我所碰到的人沒有不坦白認為這兩個國家是遲早要分立的。可是，在力圖敘述我們所說的大陸已經具備獨立條件或宜於宣布獨立時，我們卻比其他任何時候更少發表經過周密考慮的意見。

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 proves the fact.

既然大家都同意這個方案，不過是對於實行的時間問題意見有所不同，那麽，為了免除錯誤，就讓我們概括地考察一下情況，在可能的條件下努力找出合適的時間。可是我的話毋需多講，探究的手續立刻就告一段落了，因為時間已經找到了我們。各種形勢的全面的湊合，也就是各種形勢的令人鼓舞的一致性，證明了這個事實。

It is not in numbers, but in unity, that our great strength lies; yet our present numbers are sufficient to repel the force of the entire 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.

我們偉大的力量在於團結一致，而不在於人數的多寡。然而我們現在的人數是足以抵抗全世界的武力的。北美大陸目前擁有的武裝齊備而訓練有素的隊伍，比世界上其他任何國家為大，而且恰巧在力量上達到這樣的地步，那就是，單獨一個殖民地無法獨立自存，但聯合起來的整體卻什麽都能辦到。我們的陸上兵力是綽綽有余的，至於海軍方面，只要這個大陸仍舊抓在英國手裏，我們就不能不敏銳地感覺到，它是永遠不會允許北美建造一艘軍艦的。因此，即使在百年以後，我們的這一部門也不會比現在更有進展；可是實際的情況也許還不如今天，因為我國的木材每天都在減少，而最後剩下的一些不是在很遠的地方，便是不容易獲得。

Were the continent crowded with inhabitants, her sufferings under the present circumstances would be intolerable. The more sea port towns we had, the more should we have both to defend and to loose? 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.

如果大陸人口擁擠，它在目前情況下所受的痛苦將是不可忍受的。我們的海港城市愈多，我們需要防守和放棄的城市也愈多。我們現今的人數幸而在比例上合於我們的要求，因此誰也不會閑著沒有事幹。商業的減少能產生一支大軍，而一支大軍的必需品又產生一項新的商業。

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 a man of honor, and is the true characteristic of a narrow heart and a peddling politician.

我們沒有債務，我們由於這個緣故而欠下的債款，將成為我們德行的光榮紀念。只要我們能夠把一個固定的政權形式、一個與眾不同的獨立的政體留給後代，花任何代價來換取都是便宜的。但是，如果只是為了求得廢除幾項可惡的法令和打垮現在的內閣，那麽花費幾百萬鎊就劃算不來了，而且這種對待後代的方式，是十分殘酷的；因為這意味著，我們留給他們的是一件需要加以完成的艱巨工作和一項他們從中得不到好處的債務。有自尊心的人不應該存這樣的念頭，這十足代表氣量狹小的人和無聊政客的想法。

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 interests. 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.

只要事業成功，哪怕負一點債也是不值得我們顧慮的。任何一個國家都不應該沒有債務。國債就是國家的證券；即使它不付利息，也決不是一件了不起的事。英國負債在一億四千萬鎊以上，所付的利息超過四百萬鎊。它有一支強大的海軍，作為它負債的補償；北美沒有債務，也沒有海軍；然而我們只要花費英國國債的二十分之一，就能擁有同樣強大的一支海軍。英國的海軍在目前值不到三百五十萬鎊。

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 a just one. See Emetic’s naval history, intro. Page 56.

這本小冊子的第一、第二兩段沒有下列的計算數字，現在把它們列出來，用以證明上面的估計是有充分根據的。參看恩蒂克著《海軍史》，緒論，第56 頁。

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.

每種等級的一艘船艦的造價，連同桅桿、帆桁、帆和索具的裝備費，以及按比例存儲的水手和船匠的八個月的食糧，據海軍大臣波徹特先生的計算為：

For a ship of a 100 guns 35,553

一艘裝有100 尊炮的船艦的代價.........35，553 鎊

For a ship of a 90 guns 29,886

一艘裝有90 尊炮的船艦的代價..........29，886 鎊

For a ship of a 80 guns 23,638

一艘裝有80 尊炮的船艦的代價.......23，638 鎊

For a ship of a 70 guns 17,785

一艘裝有70 尊炮的船艦的代價.......17，785 鎊

For a ship of a 60 guns 14,197

一艘裝有60 尊炮的船艦的代價.......14，197 鎊

For a ship of a 50 guns 10,606

一艘裝有50 尊炮的船艦的代價.......10，606 鎊

For a ship of a 40 guns 7,558

一艘裝有40 尊炮的船艦的代價.......7，558 鎊

For a ship of a 30 guns 5,846

一艘裝有30 尊炮的船艦的代價.......5，846 鎊

For a ship of a 20 guns 3,710

一艘裝有20 尊炮的船艦的代價.......3，710 鎊

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.

這樣，我們倒很容易總計英國全部海軍的價值或代價，因為它在1757年的極盛時代擁有下列的船艦數和火炮數：

Ships.   Guns.                       Cost of one.     Cost of all.

船艦數   火炮數                       每艘代價        全部代價

6        100                            35,553l鎊     213,318鎊.

12        90                               29,886鎊     358,632鎊

12        80                              23,638鎊     283,656鎊

43        70                              17,785鎊     764,755鎊

35        60                              14,197鎊     496,895鎊

40        50                               10,606鎊     424,240鎊

45        40                                7,558鎊     340,110鎊

58        20                                3,710鎊     215,180鎊

85單桅帆船、爆破船、放火船彼此聯在一起， 2000鎊     170,000鎊

代價，                                               3,266,786鎊

供添置火炮的余額，233,214鎊；               共計，   3,500,000鎊

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 the 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.

世界上沒有一個國家處於這樣適當的位置，也沒有一個國家能像北美這樣從內部籌建一支艦隊的。柏油、木材、鐵和繩索都是它的天然產品。我們用不著向國外購買什麽。荷蘭人把他們的軍艦租給西班牙人和葡萄牙人，從而獲得巨大的利潤，但他們所用的原料卻大部分不得不從國外輸入。既然興建艦隊在我國具有優越的自然條件，我們就應當把這件事情看作一項商業。這是我們所能辦到的最有利的投資。一支建成的海軍艦隊，價值比它的代價為高；而國家政策的頗有意義的地方就在於把商業和國防統一起來。讓我們建造吧；如果我們不需要它們，我們可以出售，借此用現金和現銀來代替我們的紙幣。

In point of manning a fleet, people in general run into great errors; it is not necessary that one fourth parts 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 landsmen 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 rivaling 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.

關於在艦隊裏配置人員的問題，一般人的想法都有很大的錯誤；用不著要有四分之一的人是水兵。那艘“可怖的”武裝民船，“死神”船長，在上次戰爭中同任何船只作了最激烈的戰鬥，但是船上的水兵不到二十人，雖然編制中的人數在二百以上。只要有幾個幹練的、善於交際的水兵，就可以使許許多多積極的新水兵馬上學會船上的普通工作。所以，現在既然我們的木材供應充沛，我們的漁場遭到封鎖，我們的水手和船匠陷於失業，那麽在這個時候來開創我們的海上事業，可以說是千載難逢的良機。四十年以前曾經在新英格蘭造過幾艘裝有七、八十尊火炮的戰艦，為什麽現在不采取同樣的行動呢？造船是北美最值得驕傲的事業，總有一天它將在這方面超過世界各國。東方的老大帝國多半位居內陸，因此就不可能同北美匹敵。非洲現在還處於野蠻狀態；而歐洲的任何國家既沒有這樣透迤的海岸，又沒有這樣國內的原料供應。自然界對於人類的賜予，往往一方面慷慨，另一方面吝嗇；只有對北美它是西方面都很大方的。幅員廣大的俄羅斯帝國幾乎沒有出海的道路，所以它的取之不盡的森林，它的柏油、鐵和繩索不過是商品罷了。

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.

從安全方面說，難道我們應該沒有艦隊嗎？我們現在不是六十年前的微不足道的人了；那時我們也許曾把財產放在街頭，或者寧可說是放在田野，門戶不必關鎖也能睡得很安穩。現在情況不同了，我們自衛的方式應當隨著我們財產的增加而有所改進。十二個月以前，一個普通的海盜很可能上溯特拉華河，向費城的居民任意勒索巨款；其他的地方也可能發生同樣的意外。不但如此，任何剽悍的家夥利用一艘裝有十四或十六門火炮的雙桅船，也許就可以洗劫整個大陸，搶走五六十萬鎊錢財。這些情況是值得我們註意的，並且也指出海防的必要性。

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 harbors for that purpose? Common sense will tell us, that the power which hath endeavored to subdue us is of all others, the most improper to defend us. Conquest may be affected under the pretence of friendship; and we, after a long and brave resistance, are at last cheated into slavery. And if her ships are not to be admitted into our harbors, 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? Why do it for another?

有些人也許會說，我們同英國講和以後，它就會保護我們了。難道他們這樣懵懂，竟認為它會為了保護我們而在我們的海港裏常駐一支海軍嗎？常識告訴我們，一向企圖對我們實施鎮壓的國家是所有國家中最不配來保衛我們的。它可以假借友誼的名義實行征服；而我們自己，在長期的英勇抵抗之後，終於會受騙而處於奴隸狀態。如果我們不應該容許它的軍艦開進我們的港口，請問它怎麽來保護我們呢？遠在三四千英裏之外的海軍是沒有什麽用處的，在突然的緊急關頭就根本毫無用處。因此，假如我們以後必須實行自衛，為什麽不自己動手呢？為什麽要仰仗別人呢？

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 over match 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 lying in the neighborhood of the Continent, is entirely at its mercy.

英國軍艦的名單又長又多，但其中可以使用的船只在任何時候不到十分之一，有很多現在已不存在了；然而只要船艦還剩下一條木板，它們的名字總是繼續保留在名單裏。在可以使用的船只中，能同時停泊在任何軍港裏備用的，不到五分之一。東印度群島、西印度群島、地中海、非洲以及英國勢力所擴展到的其他地區，都對它的海軍提出很大的要求。由於我們在心理上混雜著偏見和疏忽，我們對於英國的海軍存有一種錯誤的想法，談起來好像認為我們要同時和它全部的海軍對抗似的，因而便認定我們必須有一支同樣龐大的海軍才好：這種不能立刻加以實行的想法，曾被一夥隱藏的托利黨人利用，企圖來打消我們的興建海軍的初步計劃。這種想法要算是最錯誤的了；因為，只要北美擁有英國海軍的二十分之一的船艦，它就絕對可以成為英國的一個勁敵；因為，既然我們沒有並且也不主張有國外的統治權，我們全部的海軍就可以用在自己的海岸上，在這裏我們將比對方占加倍的優勢，而對方卻在能夠向我們進攻以前，必須航行三、四千英裏的路程，並須經過同樣的距離回去修理船只和補充給養。雖然英國靠它的艦隊可以截斷我們對歐洲的貿易，但我們也同樣可以截斷英國對西印度群島的貿易，因為西印度群島位於北美大陸附近，是完全處在它的控制之下的。

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 guard ships 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.

如果我們竟認為不必維持常備的海軍，那倒也可以想出一種在承平時期保持海軍兵力的辦法。假如獎勵商人們建造一些裝有二十、三十、四十或五十尊火炮的船只（獎金的多寡以商人在載貨容積方面損失的大小為比例），那麽，只要有這樣的船只五、六十艘，再加上幾艘經常值勤的警備艦，就可以保持一支力量充足的海軍，這樣的辦法可以使我們自己不致遭受英國深感頭痛的那種厄運，在承平時期讓艦隊停在船塢裏腐爛掉。把商業同國防的力量結合起來，是正確的政策；因為當我們的兵力和財富互相發生有利的作用時，我們就毋需害怕外來的敵人了。

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. Saltpeter 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 unloaded lands, shows the insignificance of a British government, and fully proves that nothing but Continental authority can regulate Continental matters.

差不多任何一種國防用品我們都很豐富。到處生產苧麻，所以我們並不缺少索具。我們鐵的質量比其他各國都好。我們的輕武器不比世界上任何同樣的武器差。大炮是我們能夠隨意鑄造的。硝石和火藥我們每天都在生產。我們的知識無時無刻不在增進。意誌堅定是我們固有的品質，而勇氣也從來沒有離開過我們。因此，我們還需要什麽呢？我們為什麽猶豫不決呢？除了毀滅以外，我們不能指望從英國得到任何東西。如果它再度被承認對北美享有統治權，這個大陸就不值得再住下去了。猜忌紛起，暴動不絕，誰願意挺身出來彌平它們呢？誰願意冒生命的危險來迫使他的同胞服從外國的統治呢？賓夕法尼亞和康涅狄格關於一些疆界未定的地區的爭執，表明英國的政權是不重要的，並且充分證明只有北美大陸的政權才能管理北美大陸的事務。

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 as this.

足以說明現在正是大好時機的另一個理由是：我們的人數愈少，還沒被人占有的地方就愈多，這些地方如果不被國王胡亂送給他的鄙陋的仆從，今後就可以用來不僅償還目前的債款，而且經常維持政府的開支。天下沒有一個國家具備這樣有利的條件。

The infant state of the Colonies, as it is called, so far from being against, is an argument in favor 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 any thing else. Commerce diminishes the spirit, both of patriotism and military defense. And history sufficiently informs us, that the bravest achievements were always accomplished in the non-age 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.

我們所說的各殖民地的幼稚狀態，是一個有利於獨立而決不是不利於獨立的論據。我們的人數已經相當眾多，如果人數再有增加，可能在團結上就要差些。這是一個值得註意的問題，即一個國家人口愈多，他們的軍隊愈少。在軍隊的人數方面，古人遠遠地超過今人：這裏面的道理是很明顯的，因為，既然貿易是人口眾多的結果，人們便專心致誌於商業，不去註意其他任何事情了。商業減低了愛國和軍事防禦的精神。歷史充分地告訴我們，最勇敢的業績總是在一個國家的未成年的時期完成的。隨著商業的發達，英國已經喪失了它的精神。倫敦城固然人口眾多，卻用一種膽小鬼的涵養功夫忍受著接二連三的侮辱。人們所擁有的可能會喪失的東西愈多，他們愈是不願冒險。有錢的人一般說來都是恐懼的奴隸，像搖尾乞憐的小人似的裝出一副戰戰兢兢的神氣屈從於宮廷的勢力。

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 \jar for posterity to glory in.

青年時代是良好習慣的播種季節，在個人如此，在國家也是如此。要在五十年之後把北美大陸組成單一的政府，這即使不是不可能的，也或許是困難的。由貿易和人口的增加所引起的多種多樣的利害關系，會制造出混亂來。一個殖民地將反對另一個殖民地。各個殖民地由於羽毛豐滿，將蔑視彼此的幫助：在傲慢愚蠢的人們以其有限的一點成就而自鳴得意的時候，有識之士將浩然長嘆，懊悔沒有及早組織聯盟。所以，現在正是建立聯盟的大好良機。在幼年時期締結的友誼和在患難中形成的親密感情，是一切情誼中最為經久而不可動搖的。我們目前的聯盟標誌著這兩種特性：我們還未成年，並且我們曾經遭受不幸；但是我們的團結一致已經抗拒了災難，正在開創一個足以為後世引以自豪的難忘的世紀。

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.

而且，目前這個時期是一個國家只能一度遇到的特殊時期，即把自身組成一個政府的時期。大多數的國家錯過了這個機會，因而不得不接受征服者的法律，而不是為自身制訂法律。首先，它們有一個國王，其次是有一個政體；所以會先制定統治的條款或憲章，後來才委托一些人出來加以執行：但我們不妨從別的國家錯誤中吸取經驗教訓，抓住現在的機會，從開頭便正確地處理政權問題。

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?

當威廉一世征服英國的時候，他曾強迫他們接受法律；同樣地，在我們同意北美中央政府應該占有合法的和實權的地位以前，我們將發生實權地位為某一個幸運的壞蛋所竊據的危險，他可能會以同樣的態度來對待我們，到那時候我們的自由何在？我們的財產何在？

As to religion, I hold it to be the indispensible 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 once 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.

至於宗教，我認為保護一切真誠地宣布自己的宗教信仰的人，乃是政府的必不可少的責任，並且我不知道政府在這方面還有其他的必要措施。如果你拋開各行各業的小器鬼所不願舍棄的那種狹窄的心理和自私的原則，你在這個問題上就會立刻擺脫各種恐懼。猜疑是小心眼兒的夥伴，是一切幸福的社會生活的毒物。就我自己來說，我充分地、真誠地相信，在我們中間要存在多種多樣的宗教信仰，那是上帝的意誌。這給我們基督教徒一個發揚仁愛精神的更廣闊的園地：如果我們的思想方法完全相同，我們的宗教傾向就缺少檢驗的根據；根據這個沒有偏見的原則，我把我們中間的各種宗派看作一家的孩子一般，只是他們的所謂教名互有不同罷了。

In page thirty-three, 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.

在本文第34—35頁上，我曾對大陸憲章的特點約略透露了一些看法（因為我只認為是提供線索而不是計劃），這裏不揣冒昧，再度提起這個問題，我覺得一個憲章可以被理解為人人必須參加的履行神聖義務的盟約，借以維護各個個別的部分在宗教、職業自由或財產方面的權利。牢固可靠的契約和公正合理的對待可以使友誼經久不變。

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 Associates 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 dishonored 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.

以前我也曾提到過有建立廣泛和平等的代表制的必要性；沒有其他的政治問題比這更值得我們註意了。選民人數少和代表人數少，同樣是危險的。但如果代表的人數不但是少，而且不平均，危險就更大。我舉出下面一件事作為例證；當參加聯合運動的人們的請願書提交賓夕法尼亞州議會的眾議院時，到會的只有二十八個議員；八名勃克斯縣的議員一致投票反對，有七名契斯特縣的議員也步了他們的後塵，這整個一州就由區區兩個縣所操縱；而這種危險是經常容易引起的。那個眾議院在上次開會時揚言要竭力壓制該州的代表，這樣的大言不慚應當促使全體人民註意，他們是怎樣親手把權力交托出去的。預備給他們各個代表的一套指示被湊攏起來，這些指示從常識和業務方面來說是連小學生都會感到恥辱的，而它們經過少數人、甚至極少數人在外面贊成以後，就帶到議會裏來，在那裏議員們代表全州加以通過；在另一方面，如果全州人民知道這個議會在著手擬定一些必要的公共措施時存有什麽惡意，他們就會毫不猶豫地認為那些議員是辜負了這樣的托付的。迫切的需要使許多事情帶有權宜的性質，這些權宜之計如果繼續采用的話，就會變成苦難。權宜手段和正當行為是兩回事。當北美的災難需要會商解決的時候，由幾個州議會的眾議院為此目的而指派一些人出來，乃是最簡便的或者可以說在當時是最適當的辦法；他們在進行工作時所表現的智慧曾使這個大陸免於毀滅。可是，既然我們不可能永遠沒有一個“議會”，每一個對良好秩序抱有熱烈願望的人必須承認，選舉議會議員的方式是值得考慮的。我要對研究人類的人們提出這樣一個問題：同一群人具有代議和選舉的權力；這種權力是不是太大了？當我們為後代作打算時，我們應該記住，德行並不是遺傳的。

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.

我們往往從敵人方面獲得頗有益處的箴言，時常被他們的錯誤所驚覺，開始用理智來作合理的判斷。康沃爾先生（財政委員之一）以輕蔑的態度對待紐約州議會眾議院的請願書，因為他說那個州議會的眾議院只有二十六位議員，他強調這樣一點人數不能很適當地用來代表全體。我們感謝他的這種違反本意的誠實【讀者如願充分理解廣泛和平等的代議制對於一個州來說是何等重要，應閱讀波格著《政治研究》一書。——作者】。

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 show, that nothing can settle our affairs so expeditiously as an open and determined declaration for independence. Some of which are,

總起來說，不管有些人覺得多麽奇怪，不管他們是否願意作這樣的想法，這都沒有什麽關系，但我們可以舉出許多有力的和顯著的理由來表明，只有公開地和斷然地宣布獨立，才能很快地解決我們的問題。其中的幾點理由是：

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.

第一，按照國際慣例，當任何兩國交戰時，由不參加爭端的其他一些國家出面調解，提出締結和約的預備條款。但只要北美大陸的人民還自稱為大不列顛的臣民，任何國家不論它對我們懷著多大的好感，都不能以調停人自居。因此，在目前情況下，我們可能會永遠爭執下去。

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.

第二，有人認為法國或西班牙會幫助我們，如果我們只打算利用這種幫助來彌補裂痕，鞏固英國與北美大陸的關系；這種想法是不合理的，因為所產生的後果會使那些國家蒙受損失。

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.

第三，只要我們還自承為英國的臣民，我們在外國的心目中就必然被認為是“反叛者”。許多人在臣民的名義下揭竿而起，這種先例對外國的治安多少有點危險。我們可以立刻解決這個矛盾；但是要把抵抗和臣服連在一起，卻需要運用精妙得多的思想，不是普通人所能理解的。

Fourthly.--Were a manifesto to be published, and dispatched 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.

第四，如果我們發表一個宣言，把它分送給各外國官廷，陳述我們所受的痛苦，以及我們行之無效的和平的補救辦法；同時宣布，由於我們不能再在英廷的殘酷統治下過幸福的或安全的生活，我們已經被迫而不得不同它割斷一切聯系，同時向所有那些官廷保證，我們對它們抱有和平的意願，希望同它們進行貿易：這樣一個備忘錄，對於這個大陸來說，比運載一船請願書到英國去，能產生更好的效果。

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 independence, we take rank with other nations.

我們目前帶有英國臣民的名稱，在國外既不能被人接納，也不能被人承認：各國朝廷的慣例是對我們不利的，並將永遠這樣，直到我們通過獨立而與其他國家並列為止。

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.

這些行動乍看起來也許是生疏的和困難的，但像我們已經經歷的其他一切步驟一樣，不久就會變得很合適，沒有什麽希奇了。在宣布獨立以前，北美大陸會覺得自己好像這樣一個人，他老是把某種不愉快的事情一天天地拖延下去，然而他知道這件事情非辦不可，只是不願動手，希望它已經得到解決，同時又念念不忘它的必要性。

APPENDIX

附記

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, show 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 Independance.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 tranquility of a nation, depends greatly, on the chastity of what may properly be called national manners, 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 chiefly owes 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 willful 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 tourism 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 crawls through the world like a worm.

自從這本小冊子的初版問世以後，或者可以說就在出版的那一天，英王在議會的演詞在這個城市（費城）出現了。如果預言的神靈曾經掌握了這個作品的產生，那它也決不會把它在一個更適當的關頭或更必要的時機發表。一方面的嗜血心理證明另一方面是有采取確切方針的必要的。人們從報復行動中看這一切。英王的演詞嚇不倒人，反而為獨立的果斷原則鋪平了道路。遵循禮法，甚或保持緘默，姑不論其動機如何，如果稍稍默許卑鄙和惡毒的行為，就會帶有有害的傾向；因此，如果這個格言可以承認的話，自然就能得出這樣的結論：英王的演詞既然十分毒辣，便應該受到而且越發應該受到議會和人民的普遍詛咒。然而，由於一個國家國內的太平主要依靠那種完全可以稱之為“國民風度”的純樸，所以往往最好是懷著鄙棄的心理把一些事情輕輕放過，而不去使用那種可能會對我們那個和平與安全的監護人產生變革作用的表示憎惡的新方法。也許，主要是由於這種謹小慎微的態度，英王的演詞才至今沒有受到公眾的譴責。那篇演詞，如果可以稱為演詞的話，也至多只是對真理、公共幸福和人類生存的肆無忌憚的蓄意誹謗；是犧牲人類奉獻於狂妄暴君的正式的、莊嚴的方法。但是，這種集體屠殺人類的暴行是君王們的一項特權和某種必然的結果；因為既然造化不知道他們，他們也就不知道造化，雖然他們是由我們自己創造出來的人，他們卻不知道我們，並成為他們的創造者的上帝。那篇演詞有一個好處，那就是，英王並不打算拿它來欺騙我們，而我們即使願意的話，也不能受它的欺騙。蠻橫與暴虐赫然現於紙上。它不容我們感到迷惘：甚至在閱讀的時候，每一行都使我們相信，在樹林裏狩獵的赤身露體的粗野的印第安人，也不如英國國王那樣野蠻。虛偽地稱為《英國人民致北美居民書》這篇充滿哀鳴的陰險作品的假定的作者約翰·達爾林普爾，也許曾經想當然地認為這裏的人民可以被他對於一個國王的吹噓和描述所嚇倒，因而談到了（雖然在他這方面是很不聰明的）現在這位國玉的真實的性格。“可是”，這個作者說，“如果你想贊揚一個我們對它並無不滿的政府（指撤銷印花稅法案的羅金哈姆侯爵【羅金哈姆侯爵是輝格黨自由派的領袖。——譯者】的內閣），你不去歌頌那位君王，那是不公正的，因為只有經過他的同意，他們才被準許做任何事情。”這是十足的保王主義！這裏有著甚至毫不掩飾的盲目崇拜。誰要是能夠無動於衷地聽取和容忍這樣的主張，他就是已經喪失了辨別道理的權利——背棄人格的叛徒——並且應當被認為是不僅拋棄了人類的應有的尊嚴，而且已經自陷於動物的地位之下，像一條毛蟲似的在世間卑鄙地爬行著。

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, procure 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.

然而，現在英王的所作所為是無關緊要了：他已經打破了人類的每一種道德的義務，踐踏了天性和天良，並且由於一貫的傲慢與殘酷的固有精神，已經為自己招來了普遍的憎恨。現在北美大陸的當務之急是為自身尋找出路。它已經擁有一個年輕的大家庭，它的責任是照顧這個家庭，而不是慷慨地拿出財產來，去支持一個辱沒了人類和基督教徒的名譽的政權——你們的職責是遵守一個國家的道德原則，遵守你們所屬的宗派或教派的道德原則，同時，你們更加直接地是公共自由的保護人，如果你們想要保全自己這片土地不受歐洲腐敗現象的沾染，你們一定暗中希望獨立。但是，拋開道德部分讓各人去思索外，我將主要地就下列問題再作幾點說明：

First. That it is the interest of America to be separated from Britain.

第一，脫離英國獨立，是符合北美大陸的利益的。

Secondly. Which is the easiest and most practicable plan, reconciliation or independence? With some occasional remarks.

第二，和解或者獨立，究竟哪一種方案是最簡便、最切合實際呢？這裏附加一些必要的說明。

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 independence 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.

在擁護和解方面，如果我沒有判斷錯誤的話，我可以說出這個大陸上一些最能幹最有經驗的人的意見。他們對於這個問題的主張還沒有公開宣布過。實際上這個見解是不言而喻的，因為任何一個國家，如果處於從屬外國的地位，商業受到限制，立法權力受到束縛，它是永遠不能躋於重要的地位的。北美大陸還並不知道什麽叫做富裕，雖然它已有的發展在其他各國的歷史上是無可比擬的，但它同它所能達到的成就比起來，還不過是幼年時代，而如果它像應有的那樣掌握了立法權力，那種成就是完全可以達到的。英國現今正在洋洋得意地垂涎於那種一旦如願以償時對它並無好處的東西，而北美大陸則正在對這樣一個問題猶豫不決，這個問題如果加以忽視，便將使它最後趨於滅亡。英國能夠從中得到利益的，是北美的商業，而不是征服北美，假使兩個國家像法國和西班牙一樣的互不隸屬，這種商業關系多半是會繼續下去的：因為就許多物品來說，任何一方都找不到更好的市場。這個國家脫離英國或其他任何國家而獨立，乃是目前值得爭辯的主要的和唯一的問題，它像其他一切必然要被發現的真理一樣，將日益顯得清楚而有力。

First. Because it will come to that one time or other.

第一，因為它遲早會產生這樣的結果。

Secondly. Because, the longer it is delayed the harder it will be to accomplish.

第二，因為遷延的時間愈長，完成起來將愈感困難。

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.

我常常喜歡參加公共集會和私人聚會，悄俏地註意那些不經思考便高談闊論的人們仿佛言之成理的謬誤。在我所聽到的許多謬論中間，下面的意見似乎是最普遍的，即：假如這種決裂發生在四、五十年以後而不是現在，北美大陸將更能擺脫所處的從屬地位。對於這個意見我可以回答說，我們目前的軍事技能是從上次戰爭【指1754—1760年英國殖民者由於俄亥俄流域對法國人和印第安人的鬥爭。——譯者】獲得的經驗中產生的，再過四、五十年就要完全失敗了。到那時候這個大陸將不會留下一個將軍甚或一個軍官；而我們，或者我們的繼承人，在軍事方面將像古代印第安人一樣無知。單是這一論點，如果加以密切註意的話，將無可爭辯地證明，現在這個時候是比其他一切時候更為有利的。於是論證就變成這樣：在上次戰爭結束時，我們有了經驗，但人數不夠，過了四、五十年，我們將有足夠的人數而沒有經驗；因此，適當的時機應該是在兩端之間的某一點，在這一點上，既保證充分的經驗，又有相當增加的人數。而這一時間就是現在。

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.

請讀者原諒我說這些離題話，因為這並不是直接從我最初開始討論的問題申述下來的，現在我又以下列的主張回到本題，即：萬一我們同英國的裂痕暫時彌補一下，它仍舊保留對北美的統治權和主權（隨著現在形勢的發展，北美正在完全放棄這個論點），我們就會使自己喪失那種償還我們所欠的債款或再行舉債的手段。邊遠地區（由於加拿大疆域的無理擴展【1774年英國議會通過了魁北克法案，將北美阿勒肯山以西的整個西北部領地都歸並於魁北克（屬加拿大），其目的在於保證美國獲得地主及天主教僧侶的支持。——譯者】，有些省份的邊遠地區已暗中有所損失）的價值每一百英畝僅以五鎊計，達賓夕法尼亞幣二千五百萬以上；免役稅以每英畝一便士計，年達二百萬。

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 expense 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.

出賣這些土地，就可以料理債務，而不致使任何人受累；對土地所保留的免役稅將經常減輕並遲早完全供給政府每年的開支。在什麽期間償還債款，是沒有多大意義的，只要所出賣的土地能用以還債就行，所有這一切事情暫時將由大陸委托議會辦理。現在我開始談第二個問題，即：和解或者獨立，究竟哪一種方案是最簡便、最切合實際；並順便作一些說明。凡是以事物的自然進程作為行動指南的人，是不容易被駁倒的，根據這個理由，我總括地回答說：獨立實在一個唯一的簡單的路線，其權在我；而和解則是一個十分錯綜復雜的問題，一個背信棄義的、反復無常的宮廷一定要插手進來，那時就只可能有一種解決的辦法。

The present state of America is truly alarming to every man who is capable of reflex ion. 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 endeavoring to dissolve. Our present condition, is, Legislation without law; wisdom without a plan; 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 unraced system of things. The mind of the multitude is left at random, and seeing 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 him at liberty to act as he pleases. The Tories dared not 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.

北美的現狀在每一個善於思考的人看來是的確嚴重的。沒有法律，沒有政府，除以盛情為基礎並由盛情所受予的權力以外沒有其他任何形式的權力。它是由空前的感情的一致所團結起來的，但是這種感情容易改變，每一個隱藏的敵人正在力圖加以瓦解。我們現在的情況，是有立法而無法律，有智慧而無方案，有政體而無名稱，而特別叫人吃驚的，是拼命想要處於從屬地位的完全獨立自主。這個情形是史無前例的，以前從來沒有存在過，誰能說出它的結果將怎樣呢？在目前這種毫無約束的狀況下，任何人的財產都沒有保障。人民大眾的心理聽其自然，不加理會，他們由於看不到前面的確定的目標，正在追求幻想或流言所指出的方向。沒有什麽事情算是犯罪的，沒有叛逆這回事；因此每一個人都自認為可以隨心所欲，為所欲為。托利黨人是不敢氣勢洶洶地嘯聚起來的，如果他們知道這種行動會使他們在國法面前丟掉性命的話。在戰鬥中俘獲的英國士兵和所捉到的手執武器的北美居民之間，應該劃清界線。前者是俘虜，而後者是叛徒。一個要剝奪他的自由，另一個要砍掉他的腦袋。

Notwithstanding our wisdom, there is a visible feebleness in some of our proceedings which gives encouragement to dissentions. 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 evidence that there are men who want either judgment or honesty.

盡管我們很聰明，在我們的一些行動上卻顯然存在著優柔寡斷的毛病，助長意見的分歧。“大陸的皮帶”扣得太松；如果不及時采取辦法，勢必來不及做任何事情，那時我們將陷入一種既不能實行和解又不能實行獨立的狼狽處境。國王和他的微不足道的信徒們忙著重施分裂大陸的故技，我們中間也不乏願意為散布似乎真實的謊言而奔忙的印刷商。幾個月以前在紐約兩家報紙上以及其他兩家報紙上發表的那封詭譎的假仁假義的信劄，證明有些人是既無見識又不誠實的。

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 defense 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."

躲在角落裏和洞裏侈淡什麽和解是容易的。可是這樣一些人是否認真考慮過這項工作多麽困難，如果大陸因而分裂的話有多麽危險？他們是否註意過各種各類的人，這些人的情況和處境以及他們自己的情況和處境是應當在這方面考慮到的？他們是否曾設身處地想到那些已經喪失了一切的受難者，想到那些為了保衛自己的國家而放棄一切的士兵？如果他們的糊塗的穩健只顧適合於他們自己的個人的情況而不管別人的情況，到頭來就會使他們相信，“他們是擅自決定的”。

Put us, say 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 pretence, 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 defense) 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."

有些人說，把我們放回到我們在1763年【即1763 年巴黎條約以前，根據這一條約，法國喪失了它的殖民地，而英國人則獲得了北美廣大地區的全部占有權。——譯者】的地位上去吧。對於這句話我回答說，這個要求現在不是英國所能夠同意的，它也不會提出這個要求來；但是，如果這樣的可能是存在的，如果這種要求能夠得到滿足，那我就自然要問：用什麽方法可以使這樣一個腐敗的、毫無情義的宮廷履行義務呢？另一個議會，不，甚至現在這個議會，會在將來借口說這種義務是強迫加在身上的，或者說當初同意是愚蠢的，因而決定加以取消；在那種情況下，我們有什麽辦法求得是非曲直呢？不能控訴各國：大炮是國王們的律師；判決訟案的不是司法權，而是武力。要回到1763年的關系，只是把法律放在同樣的狀態是不夠的，而是要把我們的環境也放在同樣的狀態才好；我們被燒毀和破壞的城市應當重新修建起來，我們私人的損失應該得到補償，我們為防禦而舉借的公債應該償還；否則我們的處境將比那個值得羨慕的時期壞上百萬倍。這樣一個要求，如果是在一年以前實現的話，也許還能投合大陸人民的心意，但是現在太晚了。“事情已經發展到不能挽回的地步了。”

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 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 defense became necessary, all subjection to Britain ought to have ceased; and the independency of America, should have been considered, as dating its \jar 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.

此外，只是為了堅持取消一條財政上的法令而采用武力，正如像用武力來強迫推行這樣的一條法令一樣，似乎是為神法所不容的，並且也是違背人情的。在這兩者的任何一方面，都不應當為了達到目的而不擇手段；因為人命可貴，不能在這樣微末的事情上浪擲掉。對我們人身所施的並威脅著我們的，就是暴力；是武裝力量對我們財產的破壞；是角燒殺手段對我們國家的侵略。這種情況使我們從良心上覺得需要拿起武器來。在這樣的自衛方式一旦成為必要時，我們對英國的一切順從就該停止，北美獨立的時代應該被認為是在對它發射第一發子彈時便開始了，並且由這發子彈所宣布了。這條線是前後一貫的；它既不是任意劃出的，也不是為野心所延長的，而是由一連串決非起因於各殖民地的事件所產生的。

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 Reflex ion is awful--and in this point of view, how trifling, how ridiculous, do the little, paltry cave lings, of a few weak or interested men appear, when weighed against the business of a world.

我將用下面這些適時的和善意的意見來結束我的評論。我們應當了解，今年實行獨立可以采取三種不同的方法，而三者中的任何一種遲早將決定北美的命運；它們是：依靠人民在議會中的合法呼聲，依靠軍事力量，或者依靠平民的起義。可是我們的兵士不一定總是公民，而人群也不一定總是有理智的人的集合體；像我已經說明的那樣，德性不是遺傳的，也不是永遠不變的。假如國家的獨立是由上述三種方法中的第一種實現的話，我們就會有各種機會和各方面的鼓勵來建立世界上最高尚、最純潔的政體。我們有能力開始重新建設世界。自從洪荒以來還沒有發生過像目前這樣的情況。一個新世界的誕生為期不遠了，也許像全歐洲人口那樣眾多的一代新人將從幾個月的事件中獲取他們應得的一份自由。這種想法是嚴肅的，從這個觀點看來，少數懦怯的或偏私的人的不足掛齒的無端指摘，同這具有世界意義的事業相比；該是多麽微不足道、多麽可笑啊。

Should we neglect the present favorable 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.

假使我們忽視目前有利的美好的時期，以後用其他任何的方法來實行獨立，那麽必須對後果負責的，就將是我們自己，或者寧可說是那些常常不加研究或思考便貿然反對這個措施的褊狹之輩。可以舉出很多理由來支持獨立，這些理由是人們應該私下想到而不是公開地討論的。我們現在不應該來辯論我們是否會獨立的問題，而是應該千方百計地力求在穩固的、可靠和正當的基礎上來實現獨立，並且因為還沒有著手進行而感到不安。每天都使我們相信獨立的必要性。甚至托利黨（如果我們中間還有這樣一些人的話）都應該比別人更熱心地加以提倡：因為，最初委員會【指1772—1774年成立的通訊委員會，由北美十三個英國殖民地的革命地方政權組成。——譯者】的設立保護他們不致為民眾所憤恨，同樣地，一個合理的和妥善地成立的政體，將是進一步保護他們安全的唯一的可靠方法。因此，如果他們的德行還不夠使他們成為獨立黨人，他們就真該通情達理，希望獨立。

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 there from, 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.

總之，獨立是維系和團結我們的唯一紐帶。那時我們就會看見我們的目標，我們的耳朵也就不會輕信一個詭計多端的和殘暴的敵人的各種陰謀了。並且，我們那時將站在正當的立場來對待英國；因為我們有理由可以斷言，英國宮廷同北美聯邦談判和平條款，比它同它稱為“叛民”的那些人談判和解條件，在自尊心方面要少受一些損傷。我們在獨立問題上遷延時日，助長著它希望征服我們的欲念，而我們遲疑不決，只會起延長戰爭的作用。既然我們曾經毫無成效地停止我們的貿易來發泄我們的不滿，現在我們就不妨試行另一種獨立的辦法來減輕我們的不滿情緒，然後自動開放貿易。英國的商人和明達人士是還會和我們在一起的，因為，有生意可做的和平環境，比沒有貿易的戰爭來得好。假如這個建議不被接受的話，我們可以向其他的宮廷提出。

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 favor 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 neighbor the hearty hand of friendship, and unite in drawing a line, which, like an act of oblivion shall bury in forgetfulness every former dissention. 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

我把問題的解決放在這些基礎上。既然還沒有人提出意見來反駁這本小冊子的以前幾版中所包含的主張，那麽可以作為反證的是：這個主張是駁不倒的，或者是贊成這個主張的人為數太多，無法加以反對。因此，讓我們不要懷著猜疑的或疑惑的心理互相觀望，而是每人要把真摯的友誼之手伸給街坊，來共同劃一條界線，這條界線像特赦令一樣，將不去追究以前的各種紛爭。讓獨立黨和托利黨的名稱消滅了吧；讓人們在我們中間聽到的名字，只是屬於良好的公民、坦率和堅強的朋友、人權與自由和獨立的北美聯邦的勇敢的擁護者吧。

INDEPENDANT STATES OF AMERICA.

Tithe Representatives of the Religious Society of the People called Quakers, or to so many of them as were concerned in publishing a 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 dishonor religion either by ridiculing, or caviling 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 instruct 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 there from, 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 laboring 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 burdens of the present day. We are endeavoring, and will steadily continue to endeavor, to separate and dissolve a connation which hath already filled our land with blood; and which, while the name of it remains, will be the fatal cause of future mischief’s 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, not 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 defense 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, with a degree of tenderness which hath not yet made it's 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 willful attack and unavoidable defense. 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 practically 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 market 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 so 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 of 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 practice 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 Savior, 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 show 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 of desire and design to break off the happy connation 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 testimonies in whatever light it is viewed serves only to dishonor your judgment, 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 who 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 you by your late liberal and charitable donations have 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.

{FOOT; 1}*Massacre at Lexington.

{FOOT; 2}*Thomas Aiello, otherwise Massively, a fisherman of Naples, who after spiriting up his countrymen in the public market place, against the oppression of the Spaniards, to whom the place was then subject, prompted them to revolt, and in the space of a day became king.

{FOOT; 3}*Those who would fully understand of what great consequence a large and equal representation is to a state, should read Burgh's political Disquisitions.

{FOOT; 4}*"Thou hast tasted of prosperity and adversity: thou knows what it is to be banished thy native country, to be over-ruled as well as to rule, and set upon the throne; and being oppressed thou hast reason to know how hateful the oppressor is both to God and man: If after all these warnings and advertisements, thou dost not turn unto the Lord with all thy heart, but forget him who remembered thee in thy distress, and give up thyself to follow lust and vanity, surely great will be thy condemnation.---Against which snare, as well as the temptation of those who may or do feed thee, and prompt thee to evil, the most excellent and prevalent remedy will be, to apply thyself to that light of Christ which shined in thy conscience, and which neither can, nor will flatter thee, nor suffer thee to be at ease in thy sins. "Barclay's Address to Charles II.

 

 

_________________________________________________

    本人鄭重聲明：本帖之所有內容（包括但不限於漢字、拼音、外文字母、單詞、句子、圖片、影像、錄音，以及前述之各種任意組合等等）完全是復制粘貼，來源於中國局域網，本人並不明白其全部或部分之意思（包括但不限於對所復制粘貼之內容的識別、閱讀、理解、分析、記憶等等），故本人不對以上及本內容負任何法律責任（包括但不限於刑事、民事責任）及其他潛在責任與義務（包括但不限於相關國家已存在、正在形成、未來將形成之的法律法規之責任）。