We may add to this, that though the prince possesses dominion and power,
by the consent and approbation of his subjects, he possesses it only for
the most _salutary_ ends. 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