Gentlemen—Let us for a few moments interchange moderate and friendly opinions.
You are not willing that political economy should believe and teach free trade.
This is as though you were to say, "We are not willing that political economy should occupy itself with society, exchange, value, law, justice, property. We recognize only two principles—oppression and spoliation."
Can you possibly conceive of political economy without society? Or of society without exchange? Or of exchange without a relative value between the two articles, or the two services, exchanged? Can you possibly conceive the idea of value, except as the result of the free consent of the exchangers? Can you conceive of one product being worth another, if, in the barter1, one of the parties is not free? Is it possible for you to conceive of the free consent of two parties without liberty? Can you possibly conceive that one of the contracting parties is deprived of his liberty unless he is oppressed by the other? Can you possibly conceive of an exchange between an oppressor and one oppressed, unless the equivalence of the services is altered, or unless, as a consequence, law, justice, and the rights of property have been violated?
You are not willing that trade should be free!
You desire, then, that it shall not be free? You desire, then, that trade shall be carried on under the influence of oppression? For if it is not carried on under the influence of oppression, it will be carried on under the influence of liberty, and that is what you do not desire.
Admit, then, that it is law and justice which embarrass you; that that which troubles you is property—not your own, to be sure, but another's. You are altogether unwilling3 to allow others to freely dispose of their own property (the essential condition of ownership); but you well understand how to dispose of your own—and of theirs.
And, accordingly, you ask the political economists4 to arrange this mass of absurdities5 and monstrosities in a definite and well-ordered system; to establish, in accordance with your practice, the theory of spoliation.
But they will never do it; for, in their eyes, spoliation is a principle of hatred6 and disorder7, and the most particularly odious8 form which it can assume is the legal form.
And here, Mr. Benoit d' Azy, I take you to task. You are moderate, impartial9, and generous. You are willing to sacrifice your interests and your fortune. This you constantly declare. Recently, in the General Council, you said: "If the rich had only to abandon their wealth to make the people rich we should all be ready to do it." [Hear, hear. It is true.] And yesterday, in the National Assembly, you said: "If I believed that it was in my power to give to the workingmen all the work they need, I would give all I possess to realize this blessing10. Unfortunately, it is impossible."
Although it pains you that the sacrifice is so useless that it should not be made, and you exclaim, with Basile, "Money! money! I detest11 it—but I will keep it," assuredly no one will question a generosity12 so retentive13, however barren. It is a virtue14 which loves to envelop15 itself in a veil of modesty16, especially when it is purely17 latent and negative. As for you, you will lose no opportunity to proclaim it in the ears of all France from the tribune of the Luxembourg and the Palais Legislatif.
But no one desires you to abandon your fortune, and I admit that it would not solve the social problem.
You wish to be generous, but cannot. I only venture to ask that you will be just. Keep your fortune, but permit me also to keep mine. Respect my property as I respect yours. Is this too bold a request on my part?
Suppose we lived in a country under a free trade regime, where every one could dispose of his property and his labor18 at pleasure. Does this make your hair stand? Reassure19 yourself, this is only an hypothesis.
One would then be as free as the other. There would, indeed, be a law in the code, but this law, impartial and just, would not infringe20 our liberty, but would guarantee it, and it would take effect only when we sought to oppress each other. There would be officers of the law, magistrates22 and police; but they would only execute the law. Under such a state of affairs, suppose that you owned an iron foundry, and that I was a hatter. I should need iron for my business. Naturally I should seek to solve this problem: "How shall I best procure23 the iron necessary for my business with the least possible amount of labor?" Considering my situation, and my means of knowledge, I should discover that the best thing for me to do would be to make hats, and sell them to a Belgian who would give me iron in exchange.
But you, being the owner of an iron foundry, and considering my case, would say to yourself: "I shall be obliged to compel that fellow to come to my shop."
You, accordingly, take your sword and pistols, and, arming your numerous retinue24, proceed to the frontier, and, at the moment I am engaged in making my trade, you cry out to me: "Stop that, or I will blow your brains out!" "But, my lord, I am in need of iron." "I have it to sell." "But, sir, you ask too much for it." "I have my reasons for that." "But, my good sir, I also have my reasons for preferring cheaper iron." "Well, we shall see who shall decide between your reasons and mine! Soldiers, advance!"
In short, you forbid the entry of the Belgian iron, and prevent the export of my hats.
Under the condition of things which we have supposed (that is, under a regime of liberty), you cannot deny that that would be, on your part, manifestly an act of oppression and spoliation.
Accordingly, I should resort to the law, the magistrate21, and the power of the government. They would intervene. You would be tried, condemned25, and justly punished.
But this circumstance would suggest to you a bright idea. You would say to yourself: "I have been very simple to give myself so much trouble. What! place myself in a position where I must kill some one, or be killed! degrade myself! put my domestics under arms! incur26 heavy expenses! give myself the character of a robber, and render myself liable to the laws of the country! And all this in order to compel a miserable27 hatter to come to my foundry to buy iron at my price! What if I should make the interest of the law, of the magistrate, of the public authorities, my interests? What if I could get them to perform the odious act on the frontier which I was about to do myself?"
Enchanted28 by this pleasing prospect29, you secure a nomination30 to the Chambers31, and obtain the passage of a law conceived in the following terms:
Section 1. There shall be a tax levied32 upon everybody (but especially upon that cursed hat-maker).
Sec. 2. The proceeds of this tax shall be applied33 to the payment of men to guard the frontier in the interest of iron-founders34.
Sec. 3. It shall be their duty to prevent the exchange of hats or other articles of merchandise with the Belgians for iron.
Sec. 4. The ministers of the government, the prosecuting35 attorneys, jailers, customs officers, and all officials, are entrusted36 with the execution of this law.
I admit, sir, that in this form robbery would be far more lucrative37, more agreeable, and less perilous38 than under the arrangements which you had at first determined39 upon. I admit that for you it would offer a very pleasant prospect. You could most assuredly laugh in your sleeve, for you would then have saddled all the expenses upon me.
But I affirm that you would have introduced into society a vicious principle, a principle of immorality40, of disorder, of hatred, and of incessant41 revolutions; that you would have prepared the way for all the various schemes of socialism and communism.
You, doubtless, find my hypothesis a very bold one. Well, then, let us reverse the case. I consent for the sake of the demonstration42.
It would be a great advantage to me to buy hatchets44 cheap, and even to get them for nothing. And I know that there are hatchets and saws in your establishment. Accordingly, without any ceremony, I enter your warehouse45 and seize everything that I can lay my hands upon.
But, in the exercise of your legitimate46 right of self-defense, you at first resist force with force; afterwards, invoking47 the power of the law, the magistrate, and the constables48, you throw me into prison—and you do well.
Oh! ho! the thought suggests itself to me that I have been very awkward in this business. When a person wishes to enjoy the property of other people, he will, unless he is a fool, act in accordance with the law, and not in violation49 of it. Consequently, just as you have made yourself a protectionist, I will make myself a socialist50. Since you have laid claim to the right to profit, I claim the right to labor, or to the instruments of labor.
For the rest, I read my Louis Blanc in prison, and I know by heart this doctrine51: "In order to disenthrall themselves, the common people have need of tools to work with; it is the function of the government to provide them." And again: "If one admits that, in order to be really free, a man requires the ability to exercise and to develop his faculties52, the result is that society owes each of its members instruction, without which the human mind is incapable53 of development, and the instruments of labor, without which human activities have no field for their exercise. But by what means can society give to each one of its members the necessary instruction and the necessary instruments of labor, except by the intervention54 of the State?" So that if it becomes necessary to revolutionize the country, I also will force my way into the halls of legislation. I also will pervert55 the law, and make it perform in my behalf and at your expense the very act for which it just now punished me.
My decree is modeled after yours:
Section 1. There shall be taxes levied upon every citizen, and especially upon iron founders.
Sec. 2. The proceeds of this tax shall be applied to the creation of armed corps56, to which the title of the fraternal constabulary shall be given.
Sec. 3. It shall be the duty of the fraternal constabulary to make their way into the warehouses57 of hatchets, saws, etc., to take possession of these tools, and to distribute them to such workingmen as may desire them.
Thanks to this ingenious device, you see, my lord, that I shall no longer be obliged to bear the risks, the costs, the odium, or the scruples58 of robbery. The State will rob for me as it has for you. We shall both be playing the same game.
It remains59 to be seen what would be the condition of French society on the realization60 of my second hypothesis, or what, at least, is the condition of it after the almost complete realization of the first hypothesis. I do not desire to discuss here the economy of the question. It is generally believed that in advocating free trade we are exclusively influenced by the desire to allow capital and labor to take the direction most advantageous61 to them. This is an error. This consideration is merely secondary. That which wounds, afflicts62, and is revolting to us in the protective system, is the denial of right, of justice, of property; it is the fact that the system turns the law against justice and against property, when it ought to protect them; it is that it undermines and perverts63 the very conditions of society. And to the question in this aspect I invite your most serious consideration.
What is law, or at least what ought it to be? What is its rational and moral mission? Is it not to hold the balance even between all rights, all liberties, and all property? Is it not to cause justice to rule among all? Is it not to prevent and to repress oppression and robbery wherever they are found?
And are you not shocked at the immense, radical64, and deplorable innovation introduced into the world by compelling the law itself to commit the very crimes to punish which is its especial mission—by turning the law in principle and in fact against liberty and property?
You deplore65 the condition of modern society. You groan66 over the disorder which prevails in institutions and ideas. But is it not your system which has perverted67 everything, both institutions and ideas?
What! the law is no longer the refuge of the oppressed, but the arm of the oppressor! The law is no longer a shield, but a sword! The law no longer holds in her august hands a scale, but false weights and measures! And you wish to have society well regulated!
Your system has written over the entrance of the legislative68 halls these words: "Whoever acquires any influence here can obtain his share of the legalized pillage69."
And what has been the result? All classes of society have become demoralized by shouting around the gates of the palace: "Give me a share of the spoils."
After the revolution of February, when universal suffrage70 was proclaimed, I had for a moment hoped to have heard this sentiment: "No more pillage for any one, justice for all." And that would have been the real solution of the social problem. Such was not the case. The doctrine of protection had for generations too profoundly corrupted71 the age, public sentiments and ideas. No. In making inroads upon the National Assembly, each class, in accordance with your system, has endeavored to make the law an instrument of rapine. There have been demanded heavier imposts, gratuitous72 credit, the right to employment, the right to assistance, the guaranty of incomes and of minimum wages, gratuitous instruction, loans to industry, etc., etc.; in short, every one has endeavored to live and thrive at the expense of others. And upon what have these pretensions73 been based? Upon the authority of your precedents74. What sophisms have been invoked76? Those that you have propagated for two centuries. With you they have talked about equalizing the conditions of labor. With you they have declaimed against ruinous competition. With you they have ridiculed77 the let alone principle, that is to say, liberty. With you they have said that the law should not confine itself to being just, but should come to the aid of suffering industries, protect the feeble against the strong, secure profits to individuals at the expense of the community, etc., etc. In short, according to the expression of Mr. Charles Dupin, socialism has come to establish the theory of robbery. It has done what you have done, and that which you desire the professors of political economy to do for you.
Your cleverness is in vain, Messieurs Protectionists, it is useless to lower your tone, to boast of your latent generosity, or to deceive your opponents by sentiment. You cannot prevent logic78 from being logic.
You cannot prevent Mr. Billault from telling the legislators, "You have granted favors to one, you must grant them to all."
You cannot prevent Mr. Cremieux from telling the legislators: "You have enriched the manufacturers, you must enrich the common people."
You cannot prevent Mr. Nadeau from saying to the legislators: "You cannot refuse to do for the suffering classes that which you have done for the privileged classes."
You cannot even prevent the leader of your orchestra, Mr. Mimerel, from saying to the legislators: "I demand twenty-five thousand subsidies79 for the workingmen's savings80 banks;" and supporting his motion in this manner:
"Is this the first example of the kind that our legislation offers? Would you establish the system that the State should encourage everything, open at its expense courses of scientific lectures, subsidize the fine arts, pension the theatre, give to the classes already favored by fortune the benefits of superior education, the most varied81 amusements, the enjoyment82 of the arts, and repose83 for old age; give all this to those who know nothing of privations, and compel those who have no share in these benefits to bear their part of the burden, while refusing them everything, even the necessaries of life?
"Gentlemen, our French society, our customs, our laws, are so made that the intervention of the State, however much it may be regretted, is seen everywhere, and nothing seems to be stable or durable84 if the hand of the State is not manifest in it. It is the State that makes the Sevres porcelain85, and the Gobelin tapestry86. It is the State that periodically gives expositions of the works of our artists, and of the products of our manufacturers; it is the State which recompenses those who raise its cattle and breed its fish. All this costs a great deal. It is a tax to which every one is obliged to contribute. Everybody, do you understand? And what direct benefit do the people derive87 from it? Of what direct benefit to the people are your porcelains88 and tapestries89, and your expositions? This general principle of resisting what you call a state of enthusiasm we can understand, although you yesterday voted a bounty90 for linens91; we can understand it on the condition of consulting the present crisis, and especially on the condition of your proving your impartiality92. If it is true that, by the means I have indicated, the State thus far seems to have more directly benefited the well-to-do classes than those who are poorer, it is necessary that this appearance should be removed. Shall it be done by closing the manufactories of tapestry and stopping the exhibitions? Assuredly not; but by giving the poor a direct share in this distribution of benefits."
In this long catalogue of favors granted to some at the expense of all, one will remark the extreme prudence93 with which Mr. Mimerel has left the tariff94 favors out of sight, although they are the most explicit95 manifestations96 of legal spoliation. All the orators97 who supported or opposed him have taken upon themselves the same reserve. It is very shrewd! Possibly they hope, by giving the poor a direct participation98 in this distribution of benefits, to save this great iniquity99 by which they profit, but of which they do not whisper.
They deceive themselves. Do they suppose that after having realized a partial spoliation by the establishment of customs duties, other classes, by the establishment of other institutions, will not attempt to realize universal spoliation?
I know very well you always have a sophism75 ready. You say: "The favors which the law grants us are not given to the manufacturer, but to manufactures. The profits which it enables us to receive at the expense of the consumers are merely a trust placed in our hands. They enrich us, it is true, but our wealth places us in a position to expend100 more, to extend our establishments, and falls like refreshing101 dew upon the laboring102 classes."
Such is your language, and what I most lament103 is the circumstance that your miserable sophisms have so perverted public opinion that they are appealed to in support of all forms of legalized spoliation. The suffering classes also say. "Let us by act of the Legislature help ourselves to the goods of others. We shall be in easier circumstances as the result of it; we shall buy more wheat, more meat, more cloth, and more iron; and that which we receive from the public taxes will return in a beneficent shower to the capitalists and landed proprietors104."
But, as I have already said, I will not to-day discuss the economical effects of legal spoliation. Whenever the protectionists desire, they will find me ready to examine the sophisms of the ricochets, which, indeed, may be invoked in support of all species of robbery and fraud.
We will confine ourselves to the political and moral effects of exchange legally deprived of liberty.
I have said: The time has come to know what the law is, and what it ought to be.
If you make the law for all citizens a palladium of liberty and of property; if it is only the organization of the individual law of self-defense, you will establish, upon the foundation of justice, a government rational, simple, economical, comprehended by all, loved by all, useful to all, supported by all, entrusted with a responsibility perfectly105 defined and carefully restricted, and endowed with imperishable strength. If, on the other hand, in the interests of individuals or of classes, you make the law an instrument of robbery, every one will wish to make laws, and to make them to his own advantage. There will be a riotous106 crowd at the doors of the legislative halls, there will be a bitter conflict within; minds will be in anarchy107, morals will be shipwrecked; there will be violence in party organs, heated elections, accusations108, recriminations, jealousies109, inextinguishable hates, the public forces placed at the service of rapacity110 instead of repressing it, the ability to distinguish the true from the false effaced111 from all minds, as the notion of justice and injustice112 will be obliterated113 from all consciences, the government responsible for everything and bending under the burden of its responsibilities, political convulsions, revolutions without end, ruins over which all forms of socialism and communism attempt to establish themselves; these are the evils which must necessarily flow from the perversion114 of law.
Such, consequently, gentlemen, are the evils for which you have prepared the way by making use of the law to destroy freedom of exchange; that is to say, to abolish the right of property. Do not declaim against socialism; you establish it. Do not cry out against communism; you create it. And now you ask us Economists to make you a theory which will justify115 you! Morbleu! make it yourselves.
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
barter
|
|
| n.物物交换，以货易货，实物交易 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
frankly
|
|
| adv.坦白地，直率地；坦率地说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
unwilling
|
|
| adj.不情愿的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
economists
|
|
| n.经济学家，经济专家( economist的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
absurdities
|
|
| n.极端无理性( absurdity的名词复数 )；荒谬；谬论；荒谬的行为 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
hatred
|
|
| n.憎恶，憎恨，仇恨 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
disorder
|
|
| n.紊乱，混乱；骚动，骚乱；疾病，失调 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
odious
|
|
| adj.可憎的，讨厌的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
impartial
|
|
| adj.(in,to)公正的，无偏见的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
blessing
|
|
| n.祈神赐福；祷告；祝福，祝愿 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
detest
|
|
| vt.痛恨，憎恶 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
generosity
|
|
| n.大度，慷慨，慷慨的行为 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
retentive
|
|
| v.保留的，有记忆的；adv.有记性地，记性强地；n.保持力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
virtue
|
|
| n.德行，美德；贞操；优点；功效，效力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
envelop
|
|
| vt.包，封，遮盖；包围 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
modesty
|
|
| n.谦逊，虚心，端庄，稳重，羞怯，朴素 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
purely
|
|
| adv.纯粹地，完全地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
labor
|
|
| n.劳动，努力，工作，劳工；分娩；vi.劳动，努力，苦干；vt.详细分析；麻烦 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
reassure
|
|
| v.使放心，使消除疑虑 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
infringe
|
|
| v.违反，触犯，侵害 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
magistrate
|
|
| n.地方行政官，地方法官，治安官 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
magistrates
|
|
| 地方法官，治安官( magistrate的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
procure
|
|
| vt.获得，取得，促成；vi.拉皮条 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
retinue
|
|
| n.侍从；随员 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
condemned
|
|
| adj. 被责难的, 被宣告有罪的 动词condemn的过去式和过去分词 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
incur
|
|
| vt.招致，蒙受，遭遇 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
miserable
|
|
| adj.悲惨的，痛苦的；可怜的，糟糕的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
enchanted
|
|
| adj. 被施魔法的，陶醉的，入迷的 动词enchant的过去式和过去分词 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
prospect
|
|
| n.前景，前途；景色，视野 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
nomination
|
|
| n.提名，任命，提名权 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
chambers
|
|
| n.房间( chamber的名词复数 )；（议会的）议院；卧室；会议厅 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
levied
|
|
| 征（兵）( levy的过去式和过去分词 )； 索取； 发动（战争）； 征税 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
applied
|
|
| adj.应用的；v.应用，适用 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
founders
|
|
| n.创始人( founder的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
prosecuting
|
|
| 检举、告发某人( prosecute的现在分词 )； 对某人提起公诉； 继续从事（某事物）； 担任控方律师 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
entrusted
|
|
| v.委托，托付( entrust的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
lucrative
|
|
| adj.赚钱的，可获利的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
perilous
|
|
| adj.危险的，冒险的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
determined
|
|
| adj.坚定的；有决心的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
immorality
|
|
| n. 不道德, 无道义 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
incessant
|
|
| adj.不停的，连续的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
demonstration
|
|
| n.表明，示范，论证，示威 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
laborer
|
|
| n.劳动者，劳工 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
hatchets
|
|
| n.短柄小斧( hatchet的名词复数 )；恶毒攻击；诽谤；休战 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
warehouse
|
|
| n.仓库；vt.存入仓库 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
legitimate
|
|
| adj.合法的，合理的，合乎逻辑的；v.使合法 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
invoking
|
|
| v.援引( invoke的现在分词 )；行使（权利等）；祈求救助；恳求 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
constables
|
|
| n.警察( constable的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
violation
|
|
| n.违反(行为)，违背(行为)，侵犯 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
socialist
|
|
| n.社会主义者；adj.社会主义的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
doctrine
|
|
| n.教义；主义；学说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
faculties
|
|
| n.能力( faculty的名词复数 )；全体教职员；技巧；院 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
incapable
|
|
| adj.无能力的，不能做某事的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
intervention
|
|
| n.介入，干涉，干预 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
pervert
|
|
| n.堕落者，反常者；vt.误用，滥用；使人堕落，使入邪路 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
corps
|
|
| n.(通信等兵种的)部队；(同类作的)一组 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
warehouses
|
|
| 仓库，货栈( warehouse的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
scruples
|
|
| n.良心上的不安( scruple的名词复数 )；顾虑，顾忌v.感到于心不安，有顾忌( scruple的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
remains
|
|
| n.剩余物，残留物；遗体，遗迹 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
60
realization
|
|
| n.实现；认识到，深刻了解 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
advantageous
|
|
| adj.有利的；有帮助的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
afflicts
|
|
| 使受痛苦，折磨( afflict的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
perverts
|
|
| n.性变态者( pervert的名词复数 )v.滥用( pervert的第三人称单数 )；腐蚀；败坏；使堕落 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
radical
|
|
| n.激进份子，原子团，根号；adj.根本的，激进的，彻底的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
65
deplore
|
|
| vt.哀叹，对...深感遗憾 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
66
groan
|
|
| vi./n.呻吟，抱怨；(发出)呻吟般的声音 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
67
perverted
|
|
| adj.不正当的v.滥用( pervert的过去式和过去分词 )；腐蚀；败坏；使堕落 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
68
legislative
|
|
| n.立法机构，立法权；adj.立法的，有立法权的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
69
pillage
|
|
| v.抢劫；掠夺；n.抢劫，掠夺；掠夺物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
70
suffrage
|
|
| n.投票，选举权，参政权 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
71
corrupted
|
|
| （使）败坏( corrupt的过去式和过去分词 )； （使）腐化； 引起（计算机文件等的）错误； 破坏 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
72
gratuitous
|
|
| adj.无偿的，免费的；无缘无故的，不必要的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
73
pretensions
|
|
| 自称( pretension的名词复数 )； 自命不凡； 要求； 权力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
74
precedents
|
|
| 引用单元； 范例( precedent的名词复数 )； 先前出现的事例； 前例； 先例 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
75
sophism
|
|
| n.诡辩 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
76
invoked
|
|
| v.援引( invoke的过去式和过去分词 )；行使（权利等）；祈求救助；恳求 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
77
ridiculed
|
|
| v.嘲笑，嘲弄，奚落( ridicule的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
78
logic
|
|
| n.逻辑(学)；逻辑性 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
79
subsidies
|
|
| n.补贴，津贴，补助金( subsidy的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
80
savings
|
|
| n.存款，储蓄 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
81
varied
|
|
| adj.多样的，多变化的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
82
enjoyment
|
|
| n.乐趣；享有；享用 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
83
repose
|
|
| v.(使)休息；n.安息 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
84
durable
|
|
| adj.持久的，耐久的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
85
porcelain
|
|
| n.瓷；adj.瓷的，瓷制的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
86
tapestry
|
|
| n.挂毯，丰富多采的画面 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
87
derive
|
|
| v.取得；导出；引申；来自；源自；出自 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
88
porcelains
|
|
| n.瓷，瓷器( porcelain的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
89
tapestries
|
|
| n.挂毯( tapestry的名词复数 )；绣帷，织锦v.用挂毯（或绣帷）装饰( tapestry的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
90
bounty
|
|
| n.慷慨的赠予物，奖金；慷慨，大方；施与 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
91
linens
|
|
| n.亚麻布( linen的名词复数 )；家庭日用织品 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
92
impartiality
|
|
| n. 公平, 无私, 不偏 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
93
prudence
|
|
| n.谨慎，精明，节俭 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
94
tariff
|
|
| n.关税，税率；(旅馆、饭店等)价目表，收费表 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
95
explicit
|
|
| adj.详述的，明确的；坦率的；显然的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
96
manifestations
|
|
| n.表示，显示（manifestation的复数形式） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
97
orators
|
|
| n.演说者，演讲家( orator的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
98
participation
|
|
| n.参与，参加，分享 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
99
iniquity
|
|
| n.邪恶；不公正 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
100
expend
|
|
| vt.花费，消费，消耗 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
101
refreshing
|
|
| adj.使精神振作的，使人清爽的，使人喜欢的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
102
laboring
|
|
| n.劳动，操劳v.努力争取(for)( labor的现在分词 )；苦干；详细分析；（指引擎）缓慢而困难地运转 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
103
lament
|
|
| n.悲叹，悔恨，恸哭；v.哀悼，悔恨，悲叹 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
104
proprietors
|
|
| n.所有人，业主( proprietor的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
105
perfectly
|
|
| adv.完美地，无可非议地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
106
riotous
|
|
| adj.骚乱的；狂欢的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
107
anarchy
|
|
| n.无政府状态；社会秩序混乱，无秩序 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
108
accusations
|
|
| n.指责( accusation的名词复数 )；指控；控告；（被告发、控告的）罪名 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
109
jealousies
|
|
| n.妒忌( jealousy的名词复数 )；妒羡 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
110
rapacity
|
|
| n.贪婪，贪心，劫掠的欲望 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
111
effaced
|
|
| v.擦掉( efface的过去式和过去分词 )；抹去；超越；使黯然失色 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
112
injustice
|
|
| n.非正义，不公正，不公平，侵犯（别人的）权利 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
113
obliterated
|
|
| v.除去( obliterate的过去式和过去分词 )；涂去；擦掉；彻底破坏或毁灭 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
114
perversion
|
|
| n.曲解；堕落；反常 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
115
justify
|
|
| vt.证明…正当(或有理)，为…辩护 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |