_The Portuguese prohibition of trade has no foundation in equity_
From what has been said thus far it is easy to see the blind cupidity
of those who in order not to admit any one else to a share in their
gains, strive to still their consciences by the very arguments which
the Spanish jurists, interested too in the same case, show to be
absolutely empty.[168] For they intimate as clearly as they can
that as regards India all the pretexts employed, are far fetched
and unjust. They add that this right was never seriously approved
by the swarm of theologians. Indeed, what is more unjust than the
complaint made by the Portuguese that their profits are drained off
by the number of their competitors? An incontrovertible rule of law
lays down that a man who uses his own right is justly presumed to be
contriving neither a deceit nor a fraud, in fact not even to be doing
any one an injury. This is particularly true, if he has no intention
to harm any one, but only to increase his own property.[169] For
what ought to be considered is the chief and ultimate intent not the
irrelevant consequence. Indeed, if we may with propriety agree with
Ulpian, he is not doing an injury, but he is preventing some one from
getting a profit which another was previously enjoying.
Moreover it is natural and conformable to the highest law as well
as equity, that when a gain open to all is concerned every person
prefers it for himself rather than for
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
conveniens, ut lucrum in medio positum suum quisque malit quam
alterius, etiam qui ante perceperat.[170a] Quis ferat querentem
opificem quod alter eiusdem artis exercitio ipsius commoda evertat?
Batavorum autem causa eo est iustior, quia ipsorum hac in parte
utilitas cum totius humani generis utilitate coniuncta est, quam
Lusitani eversum eunt.[171a] Neque hoc recte dicetur ad aemulationem
fieri, ut in re simili ostendit Vasquius: aut enim plane hoc negandum
est, aut asseverandum non ad bonam modo, verum etiam ad optimam
aemulationem fieri, iuxta Hesiodum:[172a] ἀγαθὴ δ’ Ἔρις ἥδε βροτοῖσι
‘bona lis mortalibus haec est’. Nam etiam si quis pietate motus,
inquit ille, frumentum in summa penuria vilius venderet, impediretur
improba duritie eorum hominum, qui saeviente penuria suum carius
fuerant vendituri. Verum est talibus modis minui aliorum reditus: nec
id negamus, ait, ‘sed minuuntur cum universorum hominum commodo: ET
VTINAM omnium PRINCIPVM et TYRRANORVM ORBIS reditus ita minuerentur’.
Quid ergo tam iniquum videri potest, quam Hispanos vectigalem habere
Terrarum Orbem, ut nisi ad illorum nutum nec emere liceat nec
vendere?[173a] In cunctis civitatibus dardanarios odio atque etiam
poenis prosequimur; nec ullum tam nefarium vitae genus videtur, quam
ista annonae flagellatio.[174a] Merito quidem. Naturae enim faciunt
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
another, even if that other had already discovered it.[170] Who
would countenance an artisan who complained that another artisan was
taking away his profits by the exercise of the same craft? But the
cause of the Dutch is the more reasonable, because their advantage in
this matter is bound up with the advantage of the whole human race,
an advantage which the Portuguese are trying to destroy.[171] Nor
will it be correct to say, that this is done in rivalry, as Vasquez
shows in a similar case. For clearly we must either deny this or
affirm that it is done not only in honorable but in most honorable
rivalry, for, as Hesiod says, ‘This rivalry is honorable for mortal
men’.[172] For, says Vasquez, if any one should be so moved by love
for his fellow man as to offer grain at a time of great scarcity for
a lower price than usual, he would be prevented by the wicked and
hardhearted men who had the intention of selling their grain at a
higher price than usual, because of the pinch caused by the scarcity.
But, some one will object, by such methods the profits of others will
be made less. ‘We do not deny it’, says Vasquez, ‘but they are made
less to the corresponding advantage of all other men. And would that
the profits of all Rulers and Tyrants of this world could be thus
lessened’!
Indeed can anything more unjust be conceived than for the Spaniards
to hold the entire world tributary, so that it is not permissible
either to buy or to sell except at their good pleasure?[173] In all
states we heap odium upon grain speculators and even bring them to
punishment; and in very truth there seems to be no other sort of
business so disgraceful as that of forcing up prices in the grain
market.[174] That is not
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
iniuriam, quae in commune fecunda est:[175a] neque vero censeri
debet in usus paucorum reperta negotiatio, sed ut quod alteri deest
alterius copia pensaretur, iusto tamen compendio omnibus proposito,
qui laborem ac periculum transferendi in se suscipiunt.
Hoc ipsum igitur quod in republica, id est, minore hominum conventu,
grave et perniciosum iudicatur, in magna illa humani generis
societate ferendumne est? ut scilicet totius mundi monopolium faciant
populi Hispani? Invehitur Ambrosius in eos qui maria claudunt,[176a]
Augustinus in eos qui itinera obstruunt; Nazianzenus in[177a]
coemptores suppressoresque mercium, qui ex inopia aliorum soli
quaestum faciunt, et ut ipse facundissime loquitur καταπραγματεύονται
τῆς ἐνδείας. Quin et divini sapientis sententia publicis diris
devovetur sacerque habetur, qui alimenta supprimendo vexat annonam: ὅ
συνέχων σῖτον δημοκατάρατος.
Clament igitur Lusitani quantum, et quam diu libebit: ‘Lucra nostra
deciditis’. Respondebunt Batavi: ‘Immo nostris invigilamus. Hocne
indignamini in partem nos venire ventorum et maris? Et quis illa
vobis lucra mansura promiserat? Salvum est vobis, quo nos contenti
sumus’.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
to be wondered at, for such speculators are doing an injury to
nature, who, as Aristotle says, is fertile for all alike.[175]
Accordingly it ought not to be supposed that trade was invented for
the benefit of a few, but in order that the lack of one would be
counterbalanced by the oversupply of another, a fair return also
being guaranteed to all who take upon themselves the work and the
danger of transport.
Is the same thing then which is considered grievous and pernicious
in the smaller community of a state to be put up with at all in
that great community of the human race? Shall the people of Spain,
forsooth, assume a monopoly of all the world? Ambrose inveighs
against those who interfere with the freedom of the sea;[176]
Augustine against those who obstruct the overland routes; and Gregory
of Nazianzus[177] against those who buy goods and hold them, and thus
(as he eloquently says) make profits for themselves alone out of
the helplessness and need of others. Indeed in the opinion of this
wise and holy man any person who holds back grain and thus forces up
the market price ought to be given over to public punishment and be
adjudged worthy of death.
Therefore the Portuguese may cry as loud and as long as they shall
please: ‘You are cutting down our profits’! The Dutch will answer:
‘Nay! we are but looking out for our own interests! Are you angry
because we share with you in the winds and the sea? Pray, who had
promised that you would always have those advantages? You are secure
in the possession of that with which we are quite content’.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CAPVT XIII
_Batavis ius commercii Indicani qua pace, qua indutiis, qua bello
retinendum_
Quare cum et ius et aequum postulet, libera nobis ita ut cuiquam
esse Indiae commercia, superest, ut sive cum Hispanis pax, sive
indutiae fiunt, sive bellum manet, omnino eam, quam a natura
habemus libertatem tueamur. Nam ad pacem quod attinet, notum
est eam esse duorum generum: aut enim pari foedere, aut impari
coitur. Graeci[178a] istam vocant συνθήκην ἐξ ἴσου hanc σπονδὰς ἐξ
ἐπιταγμάτων illa virorum est, haec ingeniorum servilium. Demosthenes
in oratione de libertate Rhodiorum:[179a] καί τοι χρὴ τοὺς
βουλομένους ἐλευθέρους εἶναι τὰς ἐκ τῶν ἐπιταγμάτων συνθήκας φεύγειν,
ὡς ἐγγὺς δουλείας οὔσας, ‘eos qui volunt esse liberi oportet omnes
condiciones quibus leges imponuntur ita fugere tamquam quae proximae
sunt servituti’. Tales autem sunt omnes quibus pars altera in iure
suo imminuitur, iuxta Isocratis definitionem[180a] vocantis τὰ τοὺς
ἑτέρους ἐλαττοῦντα παρὰ τὸ δίκαιον. Si enim, ut inquit Cicero,[181a]
‘suscipienda bella sunt ob eam causam, ut sine iniuria in pace
vivatur’, sequitur eodem auctore*, pacem esse vocandam, non pactionem
servitutis, sed tranquillam libertatem; quippe cum et Philosophorum
et Theologorum
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -