外语教育网
您的位置:外语教育网 > 基础英语 > 英语口语 > 名人演讲 正文
  • 站内搜索:

查尔斯·詹姆斯·福克斯 论拒绝与波拿巴谈判

2006-07-07 17:16

Charles James Fox

ON REFUSAL TO NEGOTIATE WITH BONAPARTE

February,1802

  Sir,we have heard tonight a great many most acrimonious invectives against Bonaparte,against all the course of his conduct,and against the unprincipled manner in which he seized upon the reins of government.I will not make his defense.I think all this sort of invective,which is used only to inflame the passions of this House and of the country,exceedingly illtimed,and very impolitic.But I say I will not make his defense.I am not sufficiently in possession of materials upon which to form an opinion on the character and conduct of this extraordinary man.

  On his arrival in France,he found the government in a very unsettled state,and the whole affairs of the Republic deranged,crippled,and involved.He thought it necessary to reform the government;and he did reform it,just in the way in which a military man may be expected to carry on a reform.He seized on the whole authority for himself.It will not be expected from me that I should either approve or apologize for such an act.I am certainly not for reforming governments by such expedients;but how this House can be so violently indignant at the idea of military despotism,is,I own,a little singular,when I see the composure with which they can observe it nearer homenay,when I see them regard it as a frame of government most peculiarly suited to the exercise of free opinion,on a subject the most important of any that can engage the attention of a people.Was it not the system which was so happily and so advantageously established of late,all over Ireland,and which even now the government may,at its plea-sure,proclaim over the whole of that kingdom?Are not the persons and property of the people left,in many districts,at this moment,to the en-tire will of military commanders?

  “It is not the interest of Bonaparte,”it seems,“sincerely to enter into a negotiation,or if he should even make peace,sincerely to keep it.”But how are we to decide upon his sincerity?By refusing to treat with him?Surely,if we mean to discover his sincerity,we ought to hear the propositions which he desires to make.“But peace would be unfriendly to his system of military despotism.”Sir,I hear a great deal about the short-lived nature of military despotism.I wish the history of the world would bear gentlemen out in this description of it.Was not the government erected by Augustus C4444$sar a military despotism?and yet it endured for six or seven hundred years.Military despotism,unfortunately,is too likely in its nature to be permanent,and it is not true that it depends on the life of the first usurper.Though half of the Roman emperors were murdered,yet the military despotism went on;and so it would be,I fear,in France.If Bonaparte should disappear from the scene,to make room perhaps,for Berthier,or any other general,what difference would that make in the quality of French despotism,or in our relation to the country?We may as safely treat with a Bonaparte,or with any of his successors,be they who they may,as we could with a Louis XVI.,a Louis XVII.,or a Louis XVIII.There is no difference but in the name.Where the power essentially resides,thither we ought to go for peace.

  But,sir,if we are to reason on the fact,I should think that it is the interest of Bonaparte to make peace.A lover of military glory,as that general must necessarily be,may be not think that his measure of glory is fufl;that it may be tarnished by a reverse of fortune,and can hardly be in-creased by any new laurels?He must feel that,in the situation to Which he is now raised,he can no longer depend on his own fortune,his own genius,and his own talents,for a continuance of his success.He must be under the necessity of employing other generals,whose misconduct or incapacity might endanger his power,or whose triumphs even might affect the interest which he holds in the opinion of the French.Peace,then,would secure to him what he has achieved,and fix the inconstancy of fortune.

  But this will not be his only motive.He must see that France also requires a respite—a breathing interval,to recruit her wasted strength.To procure her this respite,would be,perhaps,the attainment of more solid glory,as well as the means of acquiring more solid power,than anything which he can hope to gain from arms,and from the proudest triumphs.May he not,then,be zealous to secure this fame,the only species of fame,perhaps,that is worth acquiring?Nay,granting that his soul may still burn with the thirst of military exploits,is it not likely that he is disposed to yield to the feelings of the French people,and to consolidate his power by consulting their interests?I have a right to argue in this way when suppositions of his insincerity are reasoned upon on the other side.Sir,these aspersions are,in truth,always idle,and even mischievous.I have been too long accustomed to hear imputations and calumnies thrown out upon great and honorable characters,to be much influenced by them.

  My honorable and learned friend [Mr.。Ers-kine]has paid this night a most just,deserved,and eloquent tribute of applause to the memory of that great and unparalleled character,who is so recently lost to the world.I must,like him,beg leave to dwell a moment on the venerable GEORGEWASHINGTON,though I know that it is impossible for me to bestow anything like adequate praise on a character which gave us,more than any other human being,the example of a perfect man;yet,good,great,and unexampled as General Washing-ton was,I can remember the time when he was not better spoken of in this House than Bonaparte is at present.The right honorable gentleman who opened this debate[Mr.。Dundas]may remember in what terms of disdain,or virulence,even of con-tempt,General Washington was spoken of by gentlemen on that side of the House.Does he not re-collect with what marks of indignation any member was stigmatized as an enemy to this country who mentioned with common respect the name of General Washington?If a negotiation had then been proposed to be opened with that great man,what would have been said?Would you treat with arable,a traitor!What an example would you not give by such an act!I do not know whether the right honorable gentleman may not yet possess some of his old prejudices on the subject.I hope not:I hope by this time we are all convinced that are publican government,like that of America,may exist without danger or injury to social order,or to established monarchies.They have happily shown that they can maintain the relations of peace and amity with other states.They have shown,too,that they are alive to the feelings of honor;but they do not lose sight of plain good sense and discretion.They have not refused to negotiate with the French,and they have accordingly the hopes of a speedy termination of every difference.We cry up their conduct,but we do not imitate it.

  Where,then,sir,is this war,which on every side is pregnant with such horrors,to be carried?Where is it to stop?Not till we establish the House of Bourbon!And this you cherish the hope of doing,because you have had a successful campaign.So that we are called upon to go on merely as a speculation.We must keep Bonaparte for sometime longer at war,as a state of probation.Gracious God,sir!is war a state of probation?Is peace a rash system?Is it dangerous for nations to live in amity with each other?Are your vigilance,your policy,your common powers of observation,to be extinguished by putting an end to the horrors of war?Can not this state of probation be as well undergone without adding to the catalog of human sufferings?“But we must pause!”What!must the bowels of Great Britain be torn out—her best blood he spilled—her treasures wasted—that you may make an experiment?Put yourselves—oh!that you would put yourselves in the field of battle,and learn to judge of the sort of horrors that you excite!In former wars a man might,at least,have some feeling,some interest,that served to balance in his mind the impressions which a scene of carnage and of death must inflict.

  If a man had been present at the Battle of Blenheim,for instance,and had inquired the motive of the battle,there was not a soldier engaged who could not have satisfied his curiosity,and eved,perhaps,allayed his feelings.They were fighting,they knew,to repress the uncontrolled ambition of the Grand Monarch.But if a man were present now at a filled of slaughter,and were to in-quire for what they were fighting—“Fighting!”would be the answer:“they are not fighting;they are pausing.”“Why is that man expiring?Why is that other writhing with agony?What means this implacable fury?”The answer must be:“You are quite wrong,sir;you deceive yourself—they are not fighting—do not disturb them—they are merely pausing!This man is not expiring with agony-that man is not dead—he is only pausing!Lord help you,sir!they are not angry with one another;they have no cause of quarrel;but their country thinks that there should be a pause.All that you see,sir,is nothing like fighting—there is no harm,nor cruelty,nor bloodshed in it whatever;it is nothing more than a political pause!It is merely to try an experiment—to see whether Bonaparte will not behave himself better than hereto-fore;and in the meantime we have agreed to a pause,in pure friendship!”And is this the way,sir,that you are to show yourselves the advocates of order?You take up a system calculated to uncivilized the world—to destroy order—to trample on religion—to stifle in the heart,not merely the generosity of noble sentiment,but the affections of social nature:and in the prosecution of this system,you spread terror and devastation all around you.

  Sir,I have done.I have told you my opinion.I think you ought to have given a civil,clear,and explicit answer to the overture which was fairyland handsomely made you.If you were desirous that the negotiation should have included all your allies,as the means of bringing about a general peace,you should have told Bonaparte so.But I believe you were afraid of his agreeing to the proposal.

查尔斯·詹姆斯·福克斯

论拒绝与波拿巴谈判

1802年2月

  先生们,今晚,我们听到连篇累牍的抨击波拿巴的最尖刻的言辞,抨击他的一切行为,抨击他用不道德手段夺取执政权。我不会为他辩护。我认为所有这类通常只会激起下院和英国愤怒的抨击,是特别不合时宜和非常失策的。但是,我说我不为他辩护。我手头尚未掌握足够材料来形成对这位非凡人物的性格和行为的看法。

  波拿巴到达法国时,发现政府摇摇欲坠,共和国全部事务紊乱不堪,残缺不全,亟待解决。他认为政府需要改革;他确实对政府进行了改革,以人们可能期望于一个军人的方式进行了改革。他独揽所有大权。不要指望我对这种行为表示赞同或者为它辩解。我当然不赞成这样不择手段地改革政府;但是我承认,我对我们这个下议院竟会对军事专制思想如此强烈地愤慨觉得有点奇怪,因为我看到他们评说离家门口更近的军事专制时又是十分镇静的——不,我看到的是他们把军事专制看作特别适宜于实行言论自由的政府结构,在某种问题上看作能够引起一国人民的注意力的任何政府结构中最重要的一种。最近在整个爱尔兰十分愉快而又扬扬得意地建立起来的不就是那种制度吗?即使在目前,那个政府不是在那整个王国里可以随意宣扬那种制度吗?难道此刻在许多地区不是把个人和人民的财产都交给了军事长官,听命于他们的意志吗?

  似乎有人说:“波拿巴并不真心对媾和感兴趣,或者即使媾和,也未必有诚意维持和平。”然而,我们 怎样确定他的诚意?用拒绝媾和的方法?诚然,若要确定他是否真心诚意,就应听听他想提出的建议。“但是,和平对其军事专制制度不利。”先生们,我听到了许多关于军事专制生来短命的说法。我但愿世界历史能证实这些先生的说法。难道奥古斯都·恺撒建立的政府不实行军事专制?然而它持续了六七百年。令人遗憾的是,军事专制从本质上讲,似乎是能长期存在的,但是,说它取决于第一个篡位者的寿命是不对的。罗马皇帝中虽有一半是被害身亡的,但军事专制仍在延续;所以,我担心法国也会这样。波拿巴若从历史舞台消失,很可能让位给贝蒂尔或其他将军,那对法国专制主义的性质或者我国与法国的关系会有什么影响呢?我们同样可以与波拿巴或者任何波拿巴的继承人签约,不管他们是谁,就像我们可以跟路易十六,路易十七,或者路易十八签约一样。除名义外,没有任何不同之处。谁掌握大权,就应跟谁去媾和。

  然而,先生们,如果用事实讲话,我认为波拿巴对媾和感兴趣。这位将军必定嗜好军事荣耀,他会认为荣耀尚不完美;碰到倒运时,荣耀就会黯然失色;难道不可能再增添新的荣耀了吗?在他现在所处的情况下,他必然感到不能再仰仗自己的命运、天才和睿智来继续获得成功。他必定起用其他将领,将领们的胡作非为或者平庸无能可能会危及他的权力,将领们的胜利甚至会改变法国人对他的看法。而和平将使他保住其既得的东西,稳定住命运中的变化。

  但是,这并非波拿巴的唯一目的。他必定知道法国需要短暂的喘息以恢复元气。使法国得到喘息,也许能使他获得比他希望从军队和最得意的军事胜利中得到的一切更体面的荣耀和更牢固的权力。兴许波拿巴不那么热衷于保全那也许是唯一值得获得的名望?不,假定他灵魂深处依然燃烧着渴望军功之焰,难道他会不愿意顺从法国人民的感情,考虑人民的利益以巩固自己的政权吗?在从另一方面分析关于波拿巴没有诚意的推测时,我有权这样争辩。先生们,实际上这些诽谤总是无聊的甚至是有害的。长期以来,我已习惯于听到对于伟大、高尚的人物的诋毁、中伤,已不再受其影响了。

  今晚,我的尊敬的博学的朋友(厄斯金先生)公正地、恰如其分地、雄辩地称颂了不久前谢世的那位伟大的、举世无双的人物。请允许我也像厄斯金先生那样对可敬的乔治·华盛顿罗唆几句,尽管我知道自己不可能对这样一位比其他任何人都更好地为我们树立了完人榜样的人物作出恰当的颂扬;然而,对于像华盛顿将军这样善良、伟大而绝无仅有的人,我还记得有人在这个下议院里谈到他时,对他的评价并不比现在对波拿巴的评价好。发起我们现在这场辩论的可敬的议员(邓达斯先生)也许会记得坐在下议院那一边的议员们以什么样的鄙视、恶意甚至轻蔑的言辞提到华盛顿将军。他难道不记得如果有谁以常人的敬重态度提到华盛顿将军的名字,他就会以激昂慷慨的言辞把人家污蔑为国家的敌人吗?假如提议与这位伟大的人物进行谈判,那又说些什么呢?会不会说成跟叛贼或卖国贼谈判!你用这样的行动会树立什么样的榜样?!我不知道这位可敬的议员对这个问题会不会还保留原有的一些偏见。但愿没有:我希望如今我们都相信像美国这样的共和制政府不会危及或损害社会秩序和已建立的君主政体。他们已愉快地表明可以与其他国家保持和平友好关系。他们还表明对荣誉感十分注意,但也不会忘记、丢掉理智和谨慎。他们没有拒绝与法国谈判,他们希望尽快终止所有分歧。我们称赞他们的行为,但不加以仿效。

  那么,先生们,这场对双方来说都充满恐怖的战争将在哪里进行呢?在什么时候停止呢?不会等到我们建立起波旁王朝吧!你们之所以怀有打的希望,是因为你们打了胜仗。所以,所谓要我们继续打仗仅仅是一种猜测。就像处于试验状态,我们必须使波拿巴再打一个时期。天哪!先生们!战争是一种试验状态吗?和平是个不成熟的体制吗?国与国之间和睦相处危险吗?随着战争所导致的恐怖的终结,你们的警惕性,你们的政策乃至通常的观察力就会丧失殆尽吗?而此种试验状态不会增添人们的苦难吗?“我们必须暂停!” 什么?难道必须把大不列颠的内脏挖出来,让她流出宝贵的血液,糟蹋她的财富,以便你进行一项试验吗?你们自己上战场去学会评价你们所引起的种种恐怖吧!在从前的战争中,人至少可以有某种感情、某种兴趣爱好,它们在人的头脑里起到了对屠杀和死亡的场面所必然造成的各种印象进行平衡的作用。

  比如,有人若到过布莱尼姆战场,并且询问战斗动机,每一个参战的士兵都会满足他的好奇心,也许甚至使他的情绪平静下来。他们知道自己正在为抑制那从不克制自己的伟大的君主的野心而战斗。但是现在若有人来到战场,并询问战斗的目的,回答将是“战斗!”“他们不在战斗;他们在暂停!”“那个人为什么死去?为什么另一个人感到极大的苦恼?这种无法平息的狂怒意味着什么?”回答必然是:“先生,你大错特错了;你在骗自己——他们并不在打仗——不要去打搅他们——他们只是在暂停!这个人并非因苦恼而断气——那个人没有死——他仅仅在暂停!先生,愿上帝保佑你!他们彼此并不生气;他们没有理由争吵;但他们的国家认为必须暂停。先生,你所见到的根本不像是打仗,没有伤害,也没有残暴,更没有流血;仅仅是政治上的暂停!这仅仅是进行一个试验,看波拿巴今后会不会更规矩些;同时,我们出于纯粹的友谊已同意暂停!”先生们,这就是你们在表明自己是拥护秩序的人时所用的方法吗?你们采用了一种专门为了使世界变得野蛮而精心设计的制度:破坏秩序,践踏宗教;不仅把宽宏大度的崇高感情,而且把对社会固有的感情扼杀;为推行这种制度,你们在自己周围散布恐怖和破坏。

  先生们,我讲完了。我已谈了我的观点。我想你们对于那公正而恰当地提出的建议应已作出合乎情理的、明确而详尽的回答。你们若想所有盟国都参加和谈,作为实现全面和平的手段,那末就应把它告诉波拿巴。但是我相信你们是害怕他同意这个建议的。

王德华 译

相关热词:名人 演讲
栏目相关课程表
科目名称 主讲老师 课时 免费试听 优惠价 购买课程
英语零起点 郭俊霞 30课时 试听 150元/门 购买
综艺乐园 ------ 13课时 试听 100元/门 购买
边玩边学 ------ 10课时 试听 60元/门 购买
情景喜剧 ------ 15课时 试听 100元/门 购买
欢乐课堂 ------ 35课时 试听 150元/门 购买
基础英语辅导课程
郭俊霞 北京语言大学毕业,专业英语八级,国内某知名中学英语教研组组长,教学标兵……详情>>
郭俊霞:零基础英语网上辅导名师

  1、凡本网注明 “来源:外语教育网”的所有作品,版权均属外语教育网所有,未经本网授权不得转载、链接、转贴或以其他方式使用;已经本网授权的,应在授权范围内使用,且必须注明“来源:外语教育网”。违反上述声明者,本网将追究其法律责任。
  2、本网部分资料为网上搜集转载,均尽力标明作者和出处。对于本网刊载作品涉及版权等问题的,请作者与本网站联系,本网站核实确认后会尽快予以处理。本网转载之作品,并不意味着认同该作品的观点或真实性。如其他媒体、网站或个人转载使用,请与著作权人联系,并自负法律责任。
  3、联系方式
  编辑信箱:for68@chinaacc.com
  电话:010-82319999-2371