Chapter 20 Chapter 4 About the Constitution-4

It is not difficult to see that the poor generally have large families with many children and many old people who have lost their labor force.If the children and the old were supported, most of the problems could be solved, leaving only a few minor ones, most of which could be solved by the Welfare Society, which, though humble, is the best modern public institution. There are seven million people in Great Britain; if one-fifth of them belong to the poor classes in need of relief, the number is 1.4 million.Of these 140,000 were old paupers (as we shall see later), to whom special consideration was proposed.

①Fashion: The name of the smallest copper coin in the UK, equal to a quarter of a penny. - translator ① The poor tax began about the time of Henry VIII, when taxes began to increase. Since then, the poor tax has been increasing with the increase in taxes. --author For the remaining 1.26 million people, based on a family of five, a total of 252,000 families are trapped in poverty due to the burden of their children and heavy taxes. In these families, the number of children under the age of fourteen is about five per family; some families have two, some have three; some have one, some have four; some have none, and some have five:

But families with more than five children under the age of fourteen are extremely rare, after which age these children can work and become apprentices. Assuming that there are five children (under the age of fourteen) in every two families, then the number of children is ……………………………… 630,00 The number of parents (if they are both alive) is………………504,00 To be sure, if the children are maintained, the parents are less burdened, since their poverty is caused by the expenses of raising the children. Having thus ascertained the maximum number of persons in need of assistance for the excess of children, the mode of relief or distribution may be considered, that is, from the remainder of the tax, as a tax exemption, and in lieu of the poor tax, to each poor family for every fourteen Four pounds a year for children under the age of one, to enable their parents to send them to school, to learn to read, write, and common arithmetic;This expense is:

630,000 children £4 per child per year ................................... £2,520,000 By this method, not only will the parents be lifted out of poverty, but the ignorance of the new generation will be removed, and the number of the poor will gradually decrease, because their abilities will be enhanced by education. Many gifted youngsters--those who are learning a trade, as carpenter, joiner, grinder, shipwright, blacksmith, etc.--have been stymied all their lives by lack of a little general education in childhood. Now, I would like to turn to the situation of older persons. I divide old age into two stages.The first is the stage of approaching old age, starting at fifty.This is followed by the old age stage, starting at the age of sixty.

At fifty, although the intellect is highly developed, and the powers of judgment are stronger than ever before, the physical strength for labor tends to decline.He cannot endure the same intensity of exertion as he did earlier.He was earning less money, and he couldn't stand the weather; he was becoming more and more unable to handle the delicate work that required eyesight, and he began to feel helpless like an old horse. At sixty he should have ceased to work, at least in terms of immediate needs.It is painful to see old people working to death for three meals a day in a country that claims to be civilized.

I have counted many times the men, women, and children I met on the streets of London in order to make statistics on the number of people over fifty, and found that there was an average of one in sixteen or seven.If old people do not frequent the streets, neither do babies; and most older children are in school or apprenticed in factories.Then, with sixteen as the divisor, there are 420,000 people in the UK aged 50 and over, including men and women, the poor and the rich. Of this total, the peasants, common laborers, artisans of all trades and their wives, sailors and ex-soldiers, old and feeble servants and servants, and poor widows were to be maintained.There are also a considerable number of middle-level businessmen. These people lived well in the first half of their lives, but now due to their old age and poor business, they finally fell into a slump.

To these there is an incessant class of persons engaged in various trades or ventures, who are forsaken by fate which no one can stop or control. Some people, after their fifties, at a certain period in their lives, feel the need to be supported, or find it more comfortable to be supported than to support themselves, and consider this not to be a gift and favor, but an entitlement.In order to meet unexpected circumstances, I have fixed the number of these persons at one-third of the total, that is, the one hundred and forty thousand mentioned on pages 305-306, and have proposed special consideration for them.If there were more of them, the state of society in England, despite the government's whitewashing, would be very sad.

Of these 140,000 people, I classify half, or 70,000, as those aged 50 and under, and the other half as those aged 60 and over.Having thus ascertained the approximate proportion of the old age, I proceeded to draw up schemes for their comfortable living, namely, to give from the surplus of taxes six pounds a year to every man between the ages of fifty and sixty; Death, ten pounds a year.This fee is, 70,000 people, £6420,000 per person per year 70,000 people, £10 per person per year, £700,000 Total £1,120,000 As mentioned above, this kind of alimony does not have the nature of charity, but a right.Every man and woman in England, from the day of his or her birth, pays an average of two pounds eight shillings and sixpence a year; , when he was fifty he had paid £128.15, and at sixty £154.10.If his (or her) personal taxes were converted into a general pension, he would receive after fifty years only a little more than the legal interest on the net amount he paid; The person whose situation does not need to be supplemented by such alimony, and the funds in both cases can be used to pay government expenses.It is for this reason that I make this possible request to one-third of the elderly in this country.Wouldn't it be better for 140,000 elderly people to live a comfortable old age than to spend one million public funds a year on one person, not to mention that this person is often the most incompetent person?

Let reason and justice, honor and humanity, even hypocrisy, flattery and Mr. Burke, let George, Jean Louis, Leopold, Frederick, Catherine, Cornwallis, or Tipsebb answer Let’s talk about this problem②. Thus, the amount of money distributed to the poor will be: Distributed to 252,000 poor families including 630,000 children... 2,000 pounds Distributed to 140,000 senior citizens ... 1,120,000 pounds Total £3,640,000 This leaves £360,000 left over from the four millions, a part of which can be used for the following purposes: —After all the above-mentioned arrangements have been made, there are still many families who, although not classed as poor, find it difficult to send their children to school; Worse if the parents are really poor, a country under a well-organized government should not have a kind of pension or provident fund of a mutual aid nature, in which those who participate receive an annual annuity out of the total capital invested plus interest. - translator

②The tax is calculated according to the family. For a family of five, each family pays an average of twelve pounds, seventeen shillings and six pence a year.To this amount, the poor tax must be added.While all people pay taxes on their consumer goods, not all people pay a poor tax.The exempted tax was about two million pounds—some because they were not heads of household, others because they could not afford to pay, and because I was poor on the dole.The average poor tax on the remaining five was therefore forty shillings, and the average sum of this tax and poor tax was fourteen pounds seventeen shillings and sixpence.Seventeen pounds and seventeen shillings for a family of six.Twenty pounds, sixteen shillings and sixpence for a family of seven.The average taxation in the United States, under a new or representative government, including interest on war debts, for a present population of four million (and increasing) is five shillings per man, woman, and child.So the differences between the two governments are as follows: UK US Pounds Pence Pence Pounds Pence Pence Family of Five 14176150 Family of Six 171701100 Family of Seven - Author

Allowing one person to be uneducated, only monarchy and aristocratic governments need to use obscurantism to maintain their rule. Suppose, then, that there are four hundred thousand children in this situation—a figure which is somewhat higher than should have been assumed after maintenance had been provided—the following scheme would be adopted: Each of these children would be given an allowance of ten shillings per annum for a period of six years. the annual schooling expenses, which would entitle them to six months of schooling each year, and an annual half-crown per head for paper and spelling-books. This expense will be £250,000 a year②. That leaves £110,000. Though the most well-organized and principled governments can draw up some large programs of relief, there are also smaller instances, to which the consideration of the State is both a good policy and a favor. If every woman who applied was given twenty shillings at the time of each baby's birth (and those who were not in a position to need the money would certainly not apply), it might save a great deal of misery. About 200,000 babies are born in the UK every year. If a quarter apply, The total number is ………………………………………………… 50,000 pounds Twenty shillings may also be given to each newlywed who applies in the same manner.The sum will not exceed £20,000 in all. In addition, twenty thousand pounds are to be set aside for burial expenses for those who are away to earn a living, and who may die away from their friends and relatives.The parish eased this burden, and those who fell ill in foreign lands could receive better medical care. I shall close this part of the problem by presenting a plan appropriate to the special circumstances of a metropolis like London. Circumstances continually arose in the metropolises different from those in the country, and for this reason a different, or rather an additional, remedy was necessary.In the country, even in the large towns, people are familiar with each other, and misery never reaches the extremes it tends to attain in the metropolises.No one in the country ever really starved to death or froze to death without a place to live.Yet death from freezing and starvation, and other similarly tragic scenarios, were frequent occurrences in London. Many a young man who comes to London with high hopes, little or no money, and unless he finds a job right away, is half-done; Worse; long-term unemployed servants are not much better.In short, countless small things keep happening, which are unknown to the man who leads a busy and prosperous life, but which open the first door to a life of misery.Among all kinds of hardships, hunger cannot be postponed, and a day, or even a few hours of starvation, often kills a life. These situations are the root cause of petty theft and lead to large-scale theft, which can be avoided.For there is still £20,000 left in the four million remaining taxes, plus the fund of more than £20,000 which will be mentioned in the context, and there is no better way to use it for this purpose.The scheme is as follows: First, build two or more factory buildings, or use ready-made factory buildings, which can accommodate at least 1 crown: the name of an ancient British silver coin, each worth five shillings, and half a crown is 2.5 shillings. - translator ② Public schools do not meet the general requirements of the poor.These schools are mainly set up in company cities, and children from towns and villages are not allowed to attend, or, if they go to school, the long distance also causes a great waste of time.Schools should be localized for the convenience of the poor, and I think the best way to do this is to make it possible for parents to afford the tuition themselves.In every village one can find some men and women, especially the older ones, who are competent for the job.Twenty children, at ten shillings each (not to exceed six months a year), would be sufficient to support the backwoods of England, and there were often poor clergymen's widows willing to have this income.This arrangement for children serves two purposes: education for them and livelihood for those who educate them. --author Invite six thousand people, and set up as many trades as possible in each place, so that anyone who comes can find a job that he or she can do. Second, take in all the people who come, and who they are or what they do next.The only condition is that each person can eat as many hygienic meals and live in a warm house as many jobs or hours of work, at least as good as a barracks.A portion of each person's labor income is saved and distributed to him or her when they leave; and, according to these conditions, each person stays as long as he or she wants, or comes and goes as he pleases. If each person stays for three months, then 24,000 people can be taken turns to help each year, although the actual number is only 6,000 people throughout the year.The establishment of such shelters can give those who have encountered temporary difficulties a chance to recover so that they can find better employment. Having saved for themselves a part of the proceeds of their labour, assuming that their labor could only cover half the expenses of their subsistence, the other forty thousand pounds would cover all the other expenses of a number even greater than six thousand. Besides the twenty thousand pounds left over from the previous fund, there is another sum which would very well be diverted to this use, and that is the coal tax, which is so unjustly and unjustifiably used to support the Duke of Richmond.It is appalling, especially now when the price of coal is so high, that some people are taking pleasure in social misery, and any government that allows this evil should be dismantled.This sum is said to be about twenty thousand pounds a year. I shall now close this program by enumerating the above, and then move on to other issues. The items listed are as follows: First, the abolition of the poor tax of two million pounds. Second, provide alimony for 250,000 poor families. Third, educate 1.03 million children. Fourth, provide alimony for 140,000 elderly people to live a comfortable life. Fifth, a gift of twenty shillings each for fifty thousand babies. Sixth, twenty shillings each for twenty thousand newlyweds. Seventh, To pay twenty thousand pounds for the burial of those who go out to earn their living, and die away from their friends and relatives. Eighth, to provide employment opportunities for the unemployed in big cities such as London and Westminster at any time. By carrying out this plan, the poor laws which were instruments of tormenting the common people would be repealed, and the costs of litigation prevented, and people would not be punished for their ill-dressed and disheveled children and old men of seventy and eighty. The tragic scene of begging for food along the street was shocking.The dying poor are not dragged from here to there till they die, by parish-to-parish vengeance.Widows would be able to support their children without being carted away like criminals when their husbands died; children would no longer be considered to add to their parents' misery.The places where the poor frequent will be known, for it will be to their advantage, and the number of petty thefts that poverty produces will be less.When the poor are as ready to support the government as the rich, the causes of riots and riots are gone, and with them fear is gone.You who sit comfortably and live in abundance—there are as many of them in Turkey and Russia as in England—say to yourselves, "How well are we doing?" Have you ever thought Have you ever done these things?Once you think about these things, you stop talking to yourself and thinking about yourself. This plan is easy to carry out.It does not embarrass trade by suddenly disturbing the taxation, but by diverting the purpose of the taxation; the money needed can be appropriated from the internal excise tax, which is levied in the commercial towns of England. Second-rate. I have finished talking about this question, and I will now move on to the next question. Assume that the current current expenditure is £7.5 million - the minimum amount now fixed - then, after deducting the new current expenditure of £1.5 million and the above-mentioned expenditure of £4 million, there remains Two million pounds, part of which may be used for the following purposes. Though the navy and army are largely rendered useless by the alliance with France, those who by service in the army are not fitted for other employments, should not thereby make themselves miserable by others.They cannot be compared with those who are in the court or attached to the court. A part of the Army is to be preserved, at least for a few years, and so is the Navy, for whom the preceding part of the plan has provided them with a million pounds, an amount almost five times greater than the usual strength of the Army and Navy at the time of Charles II's extravagance. One hundred thousand pounds. Now suppose that fifteen thousand soldiers were to be discharged, and that a three shillings per week be paid to each of them for life (except all deductions) in the same manner as was paid to Chelsea Hospice pensioners, so that these To return to their profession and their friends; plus a sixpence a week rise for the fifteen thousand soldiers who remained.The annual expenses are as follows: Three shillings a week for 15,000 repatriated soldiers Stipend………………………………………………………117,000 pounds Salary increase for remaining soldiers ……………………………19,500 pounds Assuming that the repatriation officer's allowance is the same as the soldier's allowance... £117,000 253,500 pounds In order to prevent a large budget, it is assumed that the Navy repatriation fee and Same pay rise as Army …………………………… 253,500 pounds A total of... £507,000. The sum of £500,000 (for ease of calculation, I have omitted the mantissa of £7,000) is an annuity for life, except for the additional £39,000, so there is a part of it every year Free, all free at that time.For every sum that is exempted, part of the tax may be abolished; for example, when thirty thousand pounds are exempted, the duty on hops may be entirely abolished; sign.In this way, there will be at least 1.5 million pounds of remaining tax left. The house and door tax is a direct tax, mixed with commerce like the poor tax, and which, if removed, would at once relieve the burden.This tax is very heavy on the middle class. The reported sum of such taxes in 1788 is added to— House, Door and Window Duty (According to the 1766 Act) ................................................... 385,459 pounds 11 shillings 7 pence House and Door and Window Duty (According to the 1779 Act) ... 130,739 pounds 14 shillings 7 pence A total of 516,199 pounds 6 shillings 0.5 pence If this tax were waived, there would be about a million remaining in taxes; and since it is always advisable to keep a reserve for a rainy day, it would be best initially not to extend the tax cut further, but to Consider what could be achieved with other means of reform. Of all taxes, the heaviest is the tax of compensation.I would, therefore, propose a proposal to abolish it and replace it with another tax, which would serve three purposes at once. First, put the tax at the expense of those who can best afford it. Second, to restore equity within the family through the distribution of property. ①In Paine's own version, and in nearly all subsequent editions, it is "twenty-nine thousand", but since the sum referred to is double that of the additional pay, that is, double that of £19,500, "twenty thousand Nine thousand" is obviously a clerical error. ——Original Editor Thirdly, to eliminate the enormous impact of the inhuman primogeniture system, which is one of the main causes of electoral fraud. In 1788 the total amount of surrogate taxes is reported to be £771,657. When a tax is proposed, the countrymen are often fooled by the rhetoric of a tax on luxuries.At one time this is called a luxury, at another time that; but the true luxury lies not in the thing itself, but in the means of obtaining it, which is often hidden. I do not know why a plant or flower growing in a field is more of a luxury in one country than in another; but an overdeveloped estate is always a luxury in every country, and therefore a proper tax. object.Take, therefore, what these benevolent tax-collectors say, and argue on the principles of the luxury tax which they themselves prescribe.If these gentlemen, or their champion, Mr. Burke, who I fear is out of date like the armored warrior, can prove that a manor with an income of twenty, thirty, or forty thousand pounds a year is not a luxury, I shall be willing to give it up. this debate. Suppose an annuity of, say, a thousand pounds is necessary for the maintenance of a family, the second thousand is of a luxurious character, the third still more so, and so on. , and in the end it will reach a sum that may be called a prohibitive luxury.It would be inadvisable to limit the property acquired by industry, so that it is right to prohibit property beyond the reach of industry; to other relatives.The wealthiest people in every country have poor relatives, often very close blood relatives. The following progressive tax schedule is drawn up according to the above principles and is used in lieu of the replacement tax.Prohibition can be achieved through formal implementation, thereby abolishing the primogeniture law of the nobility. Table I After deduction of land tax, the taxation on all estates with an annual income above fifty pounds is as follows: shilling pence From £50 to £500 …………………………… 03 (tax rate per pound) From £500 to £1,000…………………………………06 (tax rate per pound) For the second thousand pounds ………………………… 09 (tax rate per pound) For the third thousand pounds ... 10 (tax per pound) For the fourth thousand pounds ... 16 (rate per pound) For the fifth thousand pounds ... 20 (per pound) For the sixth thousand pounds ………………………… 30 (tax rate per pound) For the seventh thousand pounds ………………………… 40 (tax per pound) For the eighth thousand pounds ... 50 (per pound) For the ninth thousand pounds ... 60 (per pound) For the tenth thousand pounds ... 70 (tax rate per pound) For the eleventh thousand pounds ... 80 (tax rate per pound) For the twelfth thousand pounds ………………………… 90 (tax rate per pound) For the thirteenth thousand pounds ... 10 0 (tax rate per pound) For the fourteenth thousand pounds ... 11 0 (tax rate per pound) For the fifteenth thousand pounds ... 12 0 (tax rate per pound) For the sixteenth thousand pounds ... 13 0 (tax rate per pound) For the seventeenth thousand pounds ... 14 0 (tax rate per pound) For the eighteenth thousand pounds ... 15 0 (tax rate per pound) For the nineteenth thousand pounds ... 16 0 (tax rate per pound) For the twentieth thousand pounds ... 17 0 (tax rate per pound) For the twenty-first thousand pounds  …………………… 18 0 (tax rate per pound) For the twenty-second thousand pounds ... 19 0 (tax rate per pound) For the twenty-third thousand pounds ... 20 0 (tax rate per pound) The above table shows the progressive tax rate for every £1,000 imported per pound.The following table shows the amount of tax separately charged for each thousand pounds, the last column shows the total amount of all separately charged taxes. Table II pound shilling pence Property with an annual income of 50 pounds, 3 pence per pound, payable 0126 An industry with an annual income of 100 pounds is charged 3 pence per pound and pays 150 An industry with an annual income of 200 pounds, 3 pence per pound, pays 2100 An industry with an annual income of 300 pounds, 3 pence per pound, payable 3150 An estate with an annual income of £400 is charged 3 pence per pound and pays 500 An industry with an annual income of 500 pounds is charged 3 pence per pound and pays 6 50 Above 500 pounds, the additional 500 pounds are levied at six pence per pound. As a result, an estate with an annual income of 1,000 pounds should pay 18 pounds 15 shillings. lump sum pound shilling pence pound shilling pound shilling 0 3 6 5 per pound for the first five hundred... Second £500 per 0 9 37 10 for the second thousand per pound... Pay 1 0 50 0 per pound for the third one thousand... 1 6 75 0 per pound for the fourth thousand... 2 0 100 0 per pound for the fifth thousand... 3 0 150 0 per pound for the sixth thousand... Pay the seventh thousand per pound 4 0 200 0  … 5 0 250 0 for the eighth thousand per pound... The ninth one thousand pounds pay 6 0 300 0... The tenth thousand pays 7 0 350 0 per pound... The eleventh one thousand per pound pays 8 0 400 0... Pay 9 0 450 0 for the twelfth thousand per pound... The thirteenth thousand per pound pays 10 0 500 0... The fourteenth one thousand pounds pay 11 0 550 0... Fifteenth thousand per pound pay 12 0 600 0... The sixteenth thousand per pound pays 13 0 650 0... Pay the seventeenth thousand per pound 14 0 700 0... The eighteenth one thousand pounds pay 150 750 0... The nineteenth one thousand pounds pay 160 800 0... 17 0 850 0 for the twentieth thousand per pound... The twenty-first one thousand per pound pays 180 900 0... 19 0 950 0 for the twenty-second thousand per pound... The twenty-third one thousand per pound pays 200 1000 0... At 23,000 pounds, the tax rate reaches 20 shillings per pound, so that every subsequent thousand pounds is worthless unless the property is divided.However, this tax, as appalling as it may seem, does not, I think, yield as much as the compensatory tax; and if it is more than the compensatory tax, it should be reduced to two or three thousand The standard of the pound industry. For small and medium-sized industries, this tax is lighter than the compensatory tax (as originally intended).The annual income must exceed 7,000 or 8,000 before starting to regain weight.Its purpose is not the amount of taxation, but the justice of measures.The nobles have gone too far in shielding themselves, and this measure could restore some of the lost balance. As an example of the aristocracy protecting itself, it is only necessary to recall the first laws of excise at the time of the purported Restoration, or the reign of Charles II.The aristocratic group in power at the time compensated its own feudal obligations by taxing beer brewed for sale;The nobles do not buy beer brewed for sale, but brew their own beer free of duty; went. But the chief purpose of this progressive taxation (besides making it more equitable and reasonable than it is at present) is, as already stated, to counteract the undue influence of the inhuman primogeniture, which caused the electoral One of the main root causes of fraud. It will not yield good results to inquire how such a gigantic estate, with an annual income of thirty, forty, or fifty thousand, could have been started when industry and commerce had not been able to obtain such returns.To correct this malpractice, it is only necessary to distribute the property to all the male and female heirs of these families by peaceful means, and to return the property to the society.This is all the more necessary, since the abolition of the abolition of the aristocratic class's traditional practice of placing their young children or relations in useless posts, positions, or offices, to be supported by the public, would keep these persons in abject poverty, unless At the same time, primogeniture laws were abolished or outlawed. Progressive taxation generally has this effect, and, as can be seen from the following table showing the net proceeds of various estates after deduction of taxes, is a matter of interest to the parties most immediately concerned.It can be seen from the table that where an estate earns more than thirteen or fourteen thousand a year, the proprietors make very little profit, and consequently divide the estate among their young children or other relatives. Table 3-year income from 1,000 pounds to 23,000 pounds The net income of the rust industry:——The net income of deducting all taxes in thousands each year (unit: pound) (unit: pound) (unit: pound),, 000561,, 000106 2, 000 181 8, 000 281 4, 0004315, 000631 6, 000 881 7, 0001, 1817, 000 1, 000 1,931 9, ① tax on beer brewed for sale (nobles are exempt from paying) almost a million pounds more than the present compensatory tax, which brought in 1,666,152 pounds in 1788, so the nobles themselves should bear the compensatory tax, since it has been given to them Almost one million pounds of tax was exempted. --author ,000 2,3819,,000 2,881 10,,000 3,43110,,000 4,03110,,000 4,68111,,000 5,38111,,000 6,13111,,000 6,93112,, 000 7, 78112, 000 8, 68112, 000 9, 63112, 000 10, 631 12, note - the mantissa shilling in the table has been omitted. It can be seen from the above table that, after deducting the land tax and progressive tax, the income from an estate cannot exceed 12,370 pounds. Therefore, considering the interests of the family, these estates must be divided.An estate with an annual income of twenty-three thousand pounds, divided into six estates, five of which each had an annual income of four thousand pounds, and one of which had an annual income of three thousand pounds, would only pay taxes of one thousand one hundred and twenty-nine pounds, which amounted to Five per cent of the original amount should be paid, but if the property is owned by one person, the tax will be 10,630 pounds. While it is unnecessary to inquire into the origins of these industries, maintaining them is another matter.This is a national issue.As an inherited estate, the law has created an evil which should be remedied.Primogeniture should be abolished, not only because it is unnatural and unjust, but also because the State that practices it suffers.Young heirs were, as already stated, brought up at public expense, by denying them their fair share of inheritance; and liberty of election was violated by the evil effects of this unfair monopoly of family property.Not only that, but it also causes waste of state property.Owing to the existence of the large gardens and hunting grounds protected by this law, a considerable part of the land of the country was not available for production, and this happened when the annual crop of grain was not sufficient for the consumption of the country.In short, the evils of aristocracy are so great, and so numerous, and so unjust, wise, natural, and benevolent, that the very thought of these evils is to make sure that many persons of this class would also like to abolish it. What consolation do these people have in the thought of the insecurity and near poverty of their young offspring?Every aristocratic family has around it a cohort of dependent beggars, who in a few years or generations are driven out, and consoled by telling their stories in workhouses, workhouses, and prisons.This is the inevitable end of aristocracy.Nobles and beggars were often members of the same family.One extreme begets the other; to make one rich must make many poor; the system cannot be maintained in any other way. There are two classes of persons whom the laws of England are especially hostile to, and which are the most helpless: the child and the pauper.I have just spoken of the former; of the latter I may conclude my discussion of the subject by citing one of many examples. There are now several laws regulating and limiting the wages of workers.Why should not the workers be free to buy and sell, as legislators are free to let their fields and houses?Personal labor is the sole property of the worker. Why should this little thing and the little freedom they enjoy be violated?However, if we examine the enforcement of these laws and their consequences, it becomes increasingly unfair.Once wages are regulated by a so-called law, this statutory wage remains fixed, while everything else increases in price; , they raise the cost of living with one law and take away the income with another. But if those gentlemen who make laws and taxes think it right to limit the meager wages upon which an individual labors and feeds a family, they must feel that they are bound by no less than one dollar a year to themselves. Unrestricted income of twelve thousand pounds, and unrestricted property which they never possessed (nor, strictly speaking, their ancestors), which they abused, is to be thankful. This question is closed, I will summarize some of the main items, and then talk about other issues. The first eight articles are summarized from pages 312 to 313. The poor tax of £2 million is abolished. Give 252,000 poor families an allowance of £4 for each child under the age of 14; this allowance, plus £250,000, will enable 1,030,000 children to be educated. 给五十岁直到六十岁为止的所有贫民、破产商人和其他的人（估计为七万人）每人每年六镑年金。 给年满六十岁的所有贫民、破产商人和其他人（估计为七万人）每人十镑终身年金。 给五万个婴儿每人二十先令赠金。 给两万对新婚夫妇每对二十先令赠金。 拨两万镑给出外谋生、在远离亲友的地方死去的人作安葬费。 给在伦敦和威斯敏斯特的无业游民提供随时就业的机会。 第二批主要项目如下废除房屋税和门窗税。 发给一万五千名遣返士兵每周三先令的终身津贴，并给遣返军官以相当的津贴。 对留下的士兵每年加薪一万九千五百镑。 对遣返海军发给同样的津贴，加薪也和陆军相同。 废除代偿税。 实施一项累进税计划，以消除不公正和不人道的长子继承制以及贵族制的恶劣影响。 ①如前所述，还剩一百万镑的剩余税款。这笔款项有一部分需要用来应付未立即出现的情况，这部分钱由于目前不需要，故而可以用来进一步减少同等数额的赋税。 在正义所要求发出的呼声中，低级税务人员的处境是值得注意的。任何一个政府把一大笔国家的收入花费在闲职以及挂名的和莫须有的官职上，而不让那些实际从事税务工作的人过那怕是象样的生活，都应受到谴责。低级①对贫民的情况加以调查时，很可能会发现贫困程度大不相同，要作出比已经提出的更胜一筹的安排。有家累的寡妇比丈夫还活着的家庭困难更大。不同的州的生活费用也有所不同，在燃料方面尤其如此。假定有五万个非常情况的人，每人每年付十镑………500，000镑十万个家庭，每家每年八镑………………………………800，000镑十万个家庭，每家每年七镑……………………………700，000镑十万零四千个家庭，每家每年五镑……………………520，000镑本来给儿童每人十先令教育费，现改为给五万个家庭每家五十先令教育费…………………250，000镑十四万老年人，同前所述…………………………………1，120，000镑共计3，890，000镑这一安排等于第三百零八至三百零九页所示数字，包括二十五万镑教育费；但是它可以供养（包括老年人）四十万零四千家庭，这差不多占英国家庭总数的三分之一。 --author 本注解的计算以及根据这些计算所作的叙述，显然都有差错；不过潘恩的观点是很清楚的。 ——Original Editor 税务人员的薪金一百多年来一直停留在每年不到五十镑这个少得可怜的数额上。应当给七十镑。这方面只要有十二万镑，就可以把所有这些薪金提高到相当过得去的程度。 这个建议几乎在二十年前就提出来了，但是当时的财政委员会大吃一惊，唯恐陆海军也提出同样要求；结果是国王或某人替国王提请议会将他本人的薪俸每年增加十万镑，国王薪俸是加了，其他一切都无人过问。 至于另一类人即低级教士，我不想夸大他们的困难处境；但是，撇开种种赞成或反对不同形式的宗教偏爱与成见不谈，共同的正义感将判定一个人是否应当每年收入二、三十镑，而另一人则收入一万镑。大家知道我不是长老会教徒，所以我可以更加自由自在地谈论这个问题；因此，官廷马屁鬼为了欺骗和迷惑国民而就教会和札拜会讲的那套假仁假义的话，是不能用来反对我的。 在这个问题上持正反两种意见的糊涂人呀，你们难道还没有看穿官廷的鬼蜮伎俩吗？如果你们在教会和礼拜会问题上再争吵下去，你们就正好中了廷臣的奸计，因为他们这班人是靠贪污税款过活的，把你们的轻信当笑柄。 所有劝人为善的宗教都是好的；据我所知，还没有一个宗教是劝人为恶的。 按上述全部核算，在除去海关和国内消费税收局征税费用和退款之后，假定只有一千六百五十万镑税款交付国库；这样，交付国库的总额如果不到一千七百万镑，也非常接近此数了。在苏格兰和爱尔兰征收的税都是用在这两个国家的，因此它们的节余也出自它们各自的捐税；如果其中有一部分要支付英格兰国库，可以把它汇来。其差额每年还不到十万镑。 现在只剩下国债问题有待考虑。1789年国债的利息，通廷金不计，为九百一十五万零一百三十八镑。从那时起，这笔资金减少了多少，只有财政大臣知道得最清楚。但是，在偿付利息，废除房屋与门窗税、废除代偿税和济贫税，并加上救济贫民、教育儿童、赡养老人和津贴陆、海军遣返人员以及给留下来的人员加薪之后，还有一百万镑剩余。 在我这个局外人看来，目前这种偿还国债的方式，如果不是错误的，也是不协调的。国债之重不在于它为数达数百万或数亿，而在于因偿付利息而每年征集的税额。如果税额保持不变，那么，不论本金多少，国债的负担实际上还是照旧。只有减少因偿付利息而征收的税，公众才能知道国债减少了。 因此，对公众来说，尽管已交过数以百万计的税款，国债一点儿也不曾减少；现在比计划开始实行时还需要更多的钱来收回这笔国债。 现在先说几句闲话，以后再言归正传，我要回顾一下任命皮特先生为首相这件事。 当时我在美国。战事已经结束；仇恨虽已消失，但记忆犹新。 当联合政府组成的消息传来时，尽管我作为一个美国公民，此事与我无涉，但作为一个人我还是有所感触的。这则消息确有令人震惊之处，因为它即使不是拿原则，也是拿礼仪来公开开玩笑。这说明了诺恩勋爵的厚颜无耻，也说明福克斯先生缺乏坚定性。 当时，皮特先生可谓在政界初露头角。他头脑决非陈腐，也没有学会宫廷耍弄的那一套阴谋诡计。各方面条件都对他有利。对联合政府的愤恨情绪对他说来是一种友好的表示，而他人格上没有缺点则彼当作美德。随着和平的恢复，贸易与繁荣自会上升；就是这种增长也归功于他。 当他开始掌权时，风浪已经平息，没有什么东西阻止他贯彻他的方针。 犯错误甚至也要有些小聪明，而他却成功了。不久就暴露出来，他同他的前任都是一路货色。他非但没有从那些积累了举世无匹的沉重捐税的错误作法中吸取教益，反而寻找——我几乎可以说他招徕——敌人，并且想方设法去增加赋税。为了连他自己也不知道的某种目的，他冒险劫掠欧洲和印度，并在舍弃了他开始时的正当抱负之后，成了一个现代的骑士式的人物。 看到一个人自暴自弃是不愉快的。看到一个人自欺欺人更其如此。皮特先生没有作出什么成绩，但是他前途本来很有希望。种种迹象表明他的思想比宫廷的卑鄙龌龊要高尚得多。他那明显的直率使人对他寄予厚望；为党派的纷争弄得头昏、厌烦和惊慌失措的公众又恢复了信心，对他深有好感。但是，他把国民对联合政府的厌恶错当作他本人的功劳，冒失地采取了一个受到较少支持的人所不敢采取的措施。 所有这一切似乎表明，首相的更换是无关紧要的。一个下台，另一个上台，推行的都仍然是同样的措施、弊政和奢侈浪费。谁当首相都没有关系。 毛病出在制度上。政府的基础和上层建筑是腐朽的。不管你怎么支持，它会不断地堕落到官廷政府的地步，并且永远如此。 我要践约再回过头来探讨国债问题——这是荷英革命的产物，它的侍女就是汉诺威继位。 但是现在要查问国债是怎么开始的，已经为时过晚。那些主其事的人已经预支了这笔钱；而且不论这笔钱花得对不对，或中饱了私囊，都不是他们的罪过。然而，显而易见的是，当国民开始研究政府的性质与原则，对赋税有所了解，而且把美、法、英三国的情况加以比较时，再要把国民象过去一种蒙在鼓里就几乎是不可能的了。由于形势需要，非立刻着手改革不可。在当前，不是这些原则能发生多少力量的问题。它们已经公之于世了。它们已在全世界传布，没有任何力量可以阻止它们。象一个已经泄露出来的秘密，不可能再收回，只有瞎子才看不到形势已经开始发生变化。 九百万呆税是件严重的事；这不仅因为是坏政府的原故，而且多半是因为外国政府的缘故。把发动战争的权力交给那些前来恣意掠夺的外国人，那么，除了已经发生的事而外就不能期望什么别的了。 本书已经列举种种理由，说明对税收不论进行什么改革，都应当从政府的经常开支着手，而不应当从支付国债的利息部分着手。豁免穷人的税，他们就会如释重负，他们的不满也会统统消失；并且，通过减免已经提到过的那些捐税，国家就能弥补疯狂的对美战争的全部费用而绰有余裕。 那么，现在只剩下国债这样一个令人不满的问题；为了消除或毋宁是防止这种不满，一个好的方针就是要债券持有者本人把它当作财产，同所有其他财产一样，担负一部分捐税。这样，就可以使国债受欢迎和具有保障，而且由于它目前很大一部分不便已为它保持的本金所抵消，采取这种措施还可以进一步平息反对的声浪。 要做到这一点、可以通过渐进的办法，最轻松方便的完成必须办的一切。 最好的办法不是对本金征税，而是对国债的利息按累进率征税，当利息减少时则按同样比例减收公众的捐税。 假定利息抽的税第一年每镑为半便士，第二年要多纳一便士，并按一定比例递增，但递增数总要比任何别的财产税少。这项捐税可在偿付息金时从中扣除而无需支付任何征集费用。 每镑抽税半便士可以减少息金从而减税达两方镑。货车税与此数相等，所以第一年可以免去这项税。第二年可免去女仆税或其他某种同等数额的税，按此方式进行下去，始终用从国债抽的税来取消其他各种税，而不作日常用途，到头来各种税就都可免除。 尽管国债券的持有者需要交这种税，但是他们交纳的各种税比现在交的税要少。他们因免除济贫税、房屋与门窗税以及代偿税而节省下来的钱的数目，要比这种缓慢然而固定地征收的税所达到的数目大得多。 在我看来，找出一些足以应付任何不测事件的措施是势在必行。眼下欧洲事务中正出现一种危机，需要这样做。未雨绸缪是明智之举。赋税如果一旦放松，要复原就难了；救济也只有通过一定的和逐步的减缩才最有效。 政府的欺诈，伪善以及种种骗局正开始为人们所熟知，它们的日子不会长了。各国君主制和贵族制的丑剧正在步骑士制丑剧的后尘，柏克先生也正在穿上送葬的衣服。那么，就让它悄消地进入其他一切蠢事的坟墓，让送葬者得到安慰吧。 派人去荷兰、汉诺威、策尔或布伦斯瑞克迎请一些人来，每年花一百万镑，这些人既不谙英国的法律和语言，又不顾英国的利益，他们的能力连当一个教区警察也不配，英国嘲笑自己这种做法已为期不远了。如果可以把政府交到这样一些人的手里，那么，事情的确挺便当，英国的每一个城镇和乡村都找得到适合所有这些条件的货色。 ①世界上哪一个国家能够这样说：我国的穷人都是幸福的；他们中间既无愚昧也无贫困：监狱里没有因犯，街道上没有乞丐；老年人不愁衣食：捐税并不繁重；理性世界和我亲昵，因为我和幸福亲呢：一个国家能够说出这些话，就可以为它的宪法和政府自负了。 在短短儿年时间里，我们已经看到了两次革命，即美国革命和法国革命。 在前一次革命中，斗争的时间长，冲突激烈；在后一次革命中，国民团结一致，在没有外敌对抗的情况下，革命一开始就掌握了政权。从这两个事例中，可以明显地看到，能够注入革命领域的最大力量就是理性和共同利益。凡是这两者能有活动机会的地方，反对势力就在恐惧中死去，或因定罪而灭亡。 它们现在已普遍获得主要的地位，我们今后有希望看到一些革命或政府的更迭以同样安详的方式产生，任何可由理性和协商决定的措施都赖以贯彻。 当一个国家的舆论和思想习惯改变了的时候，就不能再象以往那样来治理它了；但是，想用暴力去完成应当用理智去完成的事，这种做法不但是错误的，而且是恶劣的。叛乱是由一个政党或政府用暴力违抗国民的公共意志而造成的。因此，每一个国家都应当设法随时了解公众对政府的舆论动向。 在这一点上，法国旧政府比英国现政府要高明得多，因为在非常时期它商以求助于当时称为的三级会议。但是，英国却没有这样的临时机构；至于那些现在叫做议员的，他们大多数不过是官廷的傀儡、命官和附庸而已。 我敢说，尽管英国全体人民都交税，可是有选举权的还不到百分之一，而议会的一个院的成员除了他们自己之外不代表任何人。因此，只有人民的自由意志才有权利对有关普遍改革的事宜采取行动；根据同样的权利，两个人可以就这种问题进行商讨，一千个人也可以。所有这些初步做法的目的在于了解民意，并对它服从。如果民意宁可要一个坏的或有缺陷的政府而不要进行改革，或者情愿付十倍于所需要的税，那么，它是有权这样做的；而且，①这一段和前一段被收入对潘恩的起诉书中。 ——Original Editor 只要多数人不把不同于他们自己的条件强加给少数人，那么，尽管可能犯许多错误，却谈不上不公平。错误也不会长期存在下去。不论开始时是多么错，经过讲道理与协商，很快就会把事情纠正过来。这样去做，就不怕闹事。既然所有的改革都把各国穷人的利益和幸福包括在内，他们自然会安分守己，满怀感激。只是因为忽视并排斥他们，他们才会闹事。 现在公众最关心的就是法国革命以及各国政府可能普遍发生变革。在欧洲所有国家中，没有一个国家象英国那样对法国革命感到莫大关切。过去世代相仇，耗费浩大，却没有任何讲得通道理的目的，现在有机会来友好地结束这种局面了，两国可以共同努力来改革欧洲的其余部分。这样做，它们不仅可以防止进一步流血和增税，而且正如已经讲过的那样，还可以减轻它们目前很大一部分负担。可是，长期的经验表明，这种改革不是旧政府所愿意提倡的；因此，这些问题应当向各国国民而不是向这样的政府提出来。 在本书的前一部分，我曾经谈到英、法、美三国联盟，并声明其目的下文再谈。尽管我没有资格直接代表美国，但我有充分理由可以断定它是乐于考虑这种措施的，只要它要与之联合的政府是代表国民而不是代表包藏祸心的官廷。法国作为一个国家和代表国民的政府，愿意同英国联盟，这是毫无疑问的。国家同个人一样，在相互缺乏了解或不知原因何在的情况下长期为敌，一旦发觉自己上当受骗，犯了错误，就会结成密友。 因此，假定有这种联合的希望，我愿意谈一谈这样的联盟（包括同荷兰的联盟）可以做哪几件不仅对直接有关各国而且对全欧洲都有好处的事情。 我认为，如果把英、法、荷三国的舰队联合起来，它们就肯定可以按商定的某种比例，有效地把欧洲全部海军加以限制和普遍裁减。 第一，欧洲任何强国包括英、法、荷自己在内，不再建造新的战舰。 第二，把现有的全部海军削减到假定现有力量的十分之一。这就可以使法国和英国每年至少各节省两百万镑，而它们的相对实力仍将保持现有的比例。如果人们好好想一想，正如有理智的人应当想的那样，就会明白，花了那么多钱造军舰，把军舰装满士兵，然后把它们开往海洋，较量一下哪一艘军舰能以最快的速度把对方击沉，这实在是再荒唐可笑不过的事。和平是不费分文的，它的好处，要比花巨大代价获得的任何胜利带来的好处多得不可胜计。但是，这尽管最符合各国国民的要求，却不能满足宫廷政府的要求，因为它们的一贯方针是为捐税、地盘和官职制造借口。 我认为，还有一点可以肯定的是，上述同盟国同美利坚合众国一道，可以有力地对西班牙提出建议：让南美洲各国独立，并象现在的北美洲一样，把那些幅员广大、资源丰富的国家向世界贸易开放。 一个国家竭尽全力将世界从奴役下解救出来并为自己获得许多朋友，它这样做给自己带来的体面和利益，要比它如果使用那些力量去加重制造破坏、荒凉和不幸大多少啊。眼下英国政府在东印度群岛所造成的恐怖情景堪与哥特人①和汪达尔人②匹敌，这些人不讲道理，对他们不能赏识的世界横加摧残掠夺。 南美洲的开放可以开辟一个无限广大的贸易场所和制成品的现金交易市①哥特人，属古代日耳曼族的一支，在公元三至五世纪侵入罗马帝国。 - translator ②汪达尔人，属古代日耳曼族的另一支，在公元四至五世纪侵入高卢、西班牙、北非等地，并曾攻占罗马。 以上两个支系的日耳曼人，均系野蛮民族，所到之处，对当时的文化艺术破坏很大。 - translator 场，这是东方世界所不具备的。东方已经充斥制成品，输入制成品不仅会损害英国的制造业，而且会使它的硬币枯竭。英国在这一贸易中的逆差通常达到每年要用东印度公司的船运出价值五十万镑以上的银币；这种情况再加上德国的阴谋和德国的津贴，就是英国银币那么少的症结所在。 但是战争对这样一些政府却是一本万利，不论它对国家会造成多大的损害。战争有助于保持虚假的希望，不让人民看破政府的弊病。它用“瞧这儿！ 瞧那儿！”这样的话来逗弄和欺骗人民大众。 美法两国的革命给英国和全欧洲提供了前所未有的大好机会。美国革命使西方世界有了一个争取自由的民族忧胜者，法国革命则是欧洲的优胜者。 再有一个国家同法国联合，专制主义和腐败政府就不敢再冒头。用句老话说，整个欧洲现在可以趁热打铁了。被侮辱的德国人和被奴役的西班牙人、俄罗斯人和波兰人都在动脑筋了。当前的时代将来大可称之为“理性的时代”，而现代人在后代看来不啻是新世界的亚当。 一旦欧洲所有的政府都建立起代议制，各国就会相互了解，宫廷的阴谋诡计所煽起的仇恨和成见也会消除。受压迫的士兵将成为自由民；受折磨的水手将不再象重罪犯一样在街上拖着脚步走，而会安全地出海经商。各国发给士兵终身津贴并将他们遣散，让他们恢复自由并回到他们的亲友中去，并且停止募兵，这样做要比用同样的开销使这么多人处于对社会和对他们自己都毫无用处的状态来得好。由于士兵在大多数国家里一向受到的待遇，可以说他们连一个朋友也没有。公民们担心他们与自由为敌而避之不及，而长官又经常打骂他们，因此他们遭受双重压迫。但是，只要自由的普遍原则在人民中占上风，一切就都会恢复正常；士兵也会因受到礼遇而变得通情达理。 在研究革命时，很容易看出它们可由两种不同的原则引起；一种是为了逃避或摆脱某种巨大的灾难；另一种是要取得巨大的实际利益；这两种革命可以用积极的革命和消极的革命的名称加以区别。在由前一种原因所引起的革命中，情绪慷慨激昂；冒险取得的补偿往往被报复行为付诸东流。但是，在由后一种原因所引起的革命中，心情与其说是激动不如说是活跃，可以冷静地对待问题。讲道理与协商，劝导与说服，成为斗争的武器，只有对那些要加以镇压的人才使用暴力。一件事，只要人们一致同意它是好的，是可以办到的，例如减轻赋税负担和消灭贪污行为，那么，目的就已经一半达到了。 他们赞成了一个目标，就会努力促使其实现。 在目前捐税过多、如此沉重地压在穷人肩上的情况下，从税款中给十万零四千户贫困家庭每年五镑，有谁会说这不是一桩好事呢？他会说给另外十万户贫困家庭每年七镑，给另外十万户贫困家庭每年八镑，给五万户贫困和寡妇的家庭每年十镑不是好事吗？在这个高度上再进一步，为了救济人生的种种不幸遭遇，给所有从五十岁直至六十岁的贫苦落魄的人每年六镑，六十岁以上每年十镑，他会说这不是好事吗？ 他会说废除对户主征收的两百万镑济贫税以及全部房屋和门窗税与代偿税不是好事吗？或者他会说杜绝贪污是桩坏事吗？所以，如果所要获得的好处值得进行一场消极的、合理的和无需付出代价的革命，那么，舍此而坐等硬是引起一场暴力革命的灾难来临实乃下策。考虑到目前整个欧洲正在进行各种改革，我不相信英国会甘居末位；而且，一旦时机成熟，最好不要等待一种非闹事不可的局面。以英勇和冒险行为去取得补偿，可能被视为人的动物机能的光荣，但是以理智、调解与普遍同意去达到同一目的却是人的理性机能更大得多的光荣①。 改革也好，革命也好，不论你叫它们什么都可以，一旦在各国扩大，那些国家就会友好往来，相互协商，而当少数几个国家结成联盟之后，将迅速发展，直至把专制主义和腐败政府彻底铲除，至少是从世界上的两个地区即欧洲和美洲铲除。那时，阿尔及利亚式海盗行为将被制止，因为这种行为所以能够存在，只是由于旧政府相互争斗的罪恶政策。 我在本书中提出和探讨的问题名目众多，但只有一段话是涉及宗教的，那就是“凡是劝人为善的宗教就是好的宗教”。 我小心翼翼地避免畅谈这个问题，因为我倾向于认为，那个所谓的现内阁是希望看到宗教上的争斗继续进行下去，以防止国民把注意力转移到政府问题上。他们仿佛要说，“往那边看，或者往任何一边看，可千万别往这边看。” 但是，由于宗教已经非常不恰当地被当作一种政治机器来使用，从而破坏了它的真实性，因此，我在结束本书之前要阐述一下我对宗教的看法。 如果我们设想一下，有一个大家庭的孩子们，在特定的日子或特定的情况下，照例要送一些礼物给他们的父母，表示他们的热爱和感激之情，每个孩子送的礼物不会相同，送的方式也很可能不同。一些孩子用诗文来表示祝贺；另一些孩子按他们的聪明所及或根据他们自以为会博得父母欢心的方式做点小玩意；有个孩子最不行，什么都不会做，他会跑到花园或田野里去采一朵他能找到的他认为是最美丽的鲜花，尽管这实际上也许只是一根野草。 父母看到这些丰富多彩的礼物，会比看到如果所有的孩子预先讲好每人都送完全相同的东西格外高兴。因为后一种做法是人为安排的，缺少热情，或者叫人感到机械生硬。但是在所有不愉快的事情中，最使父母伤心的莫过于看到，孩子们事后为了争论哪件礼物最好或最坏，竟然大打出手，兄弟姐妹相互辱骂扭抓，闹得不可开交。 为什么我们不可以设想伟大的上帝喜欢受到多种方式的礼拜呢？而最大的冒犯行为不就是想法子互相折磨，使大家都倒霉吗？就我个人而言，我是在尽力使人类和解，使他们生活幸福，使一向敌对的国家团结起来，消除战争的恐怖行为和砸碎奴役与压迫的锁链，这一切在上帝看来是可取的，因此我感到十分满足；这是我所能尽的最好义务，我心甘情愿地去履行。 我并不认为，任何两个肯动脑筋的人，对于所谓学术论点，想法会完全相同。只有那些不动脑筋的人，才表现得意见一致。在所谓的英国宪法问题上，情形就是如此。一向认为英国宪法理所当然是好的，所以就用颂词去代替真凭实据。但是，一旦英国国民着手审查它的原则和它所包含的弊病，就会发现它的毛病比我在本书和前一部书中所指出的还要多。 ①我知道，在法国，不但在人民大众中间，而且在前国民议会的许多主要成员中间，有许多最开朗的人士（总是有一些人对时间的看法比别人远大）都认为君主政体的计划在那个国家中是维持不了多少年的。他们发现，聪明才智不能世袭，所以权力也不应当世袭；并且认为，一个人每年从一个国家领取一百万镑，应当小至原子，大到宇宙，无所不知；如果他确有这样的才智，他就不屑拿这笔钱。可是他们并不愿意使国民前进的步子快于他们自己的理智和利益所限定的速度。在我出席讨论这个问题的所有场合，人们的想法总是这样的，即全体国民普遍认为，一旦时机成熟，一个体面而宽大的办法就是给当时坐在王位上的那个人（不管他是什