He may tyrannize, if he can: he may alter the _form_ of his government: he cannot, however, alter its _nature_ and _end_.

These will be immutably the same, though the whole system of its administration should be changed; and he will be still bound to _defend_ the lives and properties of his subjects, and to make them _happy_.
Does he defend those therefore, whom he invades at discretion with the sword?
Does he protect the property of those, whose houses and effects he consigns at discretion to the flames?
Does he make those happy, whom he seizes, as they are trying to escape the general devastation, and compels with their wives and families to a wretched _servitude ?_ He acts surely, as if the use of empire consisted in violence and oppression; as if he, that was most exalted, ought, of necessity, to be most unjust.

Here then the voice of _nature_ and _justice_ is against him.

He breaks that law of _nature_, which ordains, "that no just man shall be given into slavery, against his own _consent_:" he violates the first law of _justice_, as established among men, "that no person shall do harm to another without a previous and sufficient _provocation_;" and he violates also the sacred condition of _empire_, made with his ancestors, and necessarily understood in every species of government, "that, the power of the multitude being given up to the wisdom and justice of the prince, they may experience, in return, the most effectual protection from injury, the highest advantages of society, the greatest possible _happiness_." But if kings then, to whom their own people have granted dominion and power, are unable to invade the liberties of their harmless subjects, without the highest _injustice_; how can those private persons be justified, who treacherously lie in wait for their fellow-creatures, and sell them into slavery?
What arguments can they possibly bring in their defence?
What treaty of empire can they produce, by which their innocent victims ever resigned to them the least portion of their _liberty_?
In vain will they plead the _antiquity_ of the custom: in vain will the _honourable_ light, in which _piracy_ was considered in the ages of barbarism, afford them an excuse.

Impious and abandoned men! ye invade the liberties of those, who, (with respect to your impious selves) are in a state of _nature_, in a state of original _dissociation_, perfectly _independent_, perfectly _free_.
It appears then, that the two orders of slaves, which have been mentioned in the history of the African servitude, "of those who are publickly seized by virtue of the authority of their prince; and of those, who are privately kidnapped by individuals," are collected by means of violence and oppression; by means, repugnant to _nature_, the principles of _government_, and the common notions of _equity_, as established among men.
* * * * * CHAP.