CHAP. II. Of the Political Doctrine of Some French Emigrants and Their Adherents
CHAP. III. Of the Circumstances That Render the Representative Government at This Time More Necessary in France Than in Any Other Country
CHAP. IV. Of the Entry of the Allies into Paris, and the Different Parties Which Then Existed in France
CHAP. V. Of the Circumstances Which Accompanied the First Return of the House of Bourbon in 1814
CHAP. VI. Of the Aspect of France and of Paris During Its First Occupation by the Allies
CHAP. VII. Of the Constitutional Charter Granted by the King in 1814
CHAP. VIII. Of the Conduct of the Ministry During the First Year of the Restoration
CHAP. IX. Of the Obstacles Which Government Encountered During the First Year of the Restoration
CHAP. X. Of the Influence of Society on Political Affairs in France
CHAP. XI. Of the System Which Ought to Have Been Followed in 1814, to Maintain the House of Bourbon on the Throne of France
CHAP. XII. What Should Have Been the Conduct of the Friends of Liberty in 1814?
CHAP. XIII. Return of Bonaparte
CHAP. XIV. Of the Conduct of Bonaparte on His Return
CHAP. XV. Of the Fall of Bonaparte
CHAP. XVI. Of the Declaration of Rights Proclaimed by the Chamber of Representatives, 5th of July, 1815
PART VI.
CHAP. I. Are Frenchmen Made to Be Free?
CHAP. II. Cursory View of the History of England
CHAP. III. Of the Prosperity of England, and the Causes by Which It Has Been Hitherto Promoted
CHAP. IV. Of Liberty and Public Spirit Among the English
CHAP. V. Of Knowledge, Religion, and Morals Among the English
CHAP. VI. Of Society in England, and of Its Connection with Social Order
CHAP. VII. Of the Conduct of the English Government Outside of England
CHAP. VIII. Will Not the English Hereafter Lose Their Liberty?
CHAP. IX. Can a Limited Monarchy Have Other Foundations Than That of the English Constitution?
CHAP. X. Of the Influence of Arbitrary Power on the Spirit and Character of a Nation
CHAP. XI. Of the Mixture of Religion with Politics
CHAP. XII. Of the Love of Liberty
The Revolution of France is one of the grand eras of social order. Those who consider it as the result of accidental causes have reflected neither on the past nor on the future; they have mistaken the actors for the drama; and, in seeking a solution agreeable to their prejudices, have attributed to the men of the day that which had been in a course of preparation for ages.1
It would have sufficed, however, to cast a glance on the critical periods of history, to be convinced, that they were all unavoidable when they were connected in any degree with the development of ideas; and that, after a struggle and misfortunes, more or less prolonged, the triumph of knowledge has always been favorable to the greatness and the amelioration of mankind.
My ambition shall be to speak of the age in which we have lived, as if it were already remote. It will belong to the enlightened part of mankind—to those who, in thought, can render themselves contemporary with future ages—to judge if I have been able to attain the complete impartiality at which I have aimed.
In this chapter I shall confine myself to some general remarks on the political progress of European civilization, restricting myself, however, to its connection with the Revolution of France; for it is to this subject, in itself sufficiently extensive, that this work is devoted.
The two nations of antiquity, whose literature and history still form the principal portion of our intellectual treasure, were indebted for their astonishing superiority entirely to the enjoyment of a free country. But slavery existed among them, and, consequently, those rights and those motives to emulation, which ought to be common to all men, were the exclusive lot of a few. The Greek and Roman nations disappeared from the world in consequence of what was barbarous, that is, of what was unjust, in their institutions. The vast regions of Asia are lost in despotism; and, for centuries past, whatever has remained there of civilization is stationary. Thus, then, the great historical revolution, whose results admit of application to the present state of modern nations, begins from the invasion by the northern tribes; for the public law of most countries in Europe is still founded on the law of conquest.
Nevertheless, that circle of men, who alone were allowed to consider themselves as such, was increased under the feudal system. The condition of the serfs was less hard than that of slaves; there were several methods of escaping from it, and from that time various classes have begun to emancipate themselves by degrees from the fate of the vanquished. It is to the gradual increase of this circle of society that our attention ought to be turned.
The absolute government of one is the worst form of political combinations. Aristocracy is better, for in it several at least are of importance; and the moral dignity of man is recovered in the relation of the great lords with their chief. Social order, which admits all our fellow creatures to equality before the law, as before God, is as much in harmony with the Christian religion as with true liberty: both the one and the other, in different spheres, should follow the same principles.
Since the nations of the North and of Germany overthrew the Western Empire, the laws introduced by them have undergone a variety of modifications; for time, as Bacon says, is the greatest of innovators. It would be very difficult to fix with precision the dates of the successive changes; for, in tracing the leading facts, we find that one event encroaches on another. I think, however, that our attention may be fixed on four eras, in which these changes, previously announced, became particularly conspicuous.
The first political period was that in which the nobles, that is to say the conquerors, considered themselves as co-partners in the royal power of their chief, while the nation was divided among the different lords, who disposed of it as they pleased.
There was then neither education, industry, nor trade: landed property was almost the only kind known; and Charlemagne himself was occupied in his capitularia2 with the rural economy of the royal demesnes. The nobles went to war in person, leading their armed force: thus the sovereigns had no occasion to levy taxes, as they supported neither military nor civil establishments. Everything demonstrates that, at this time, the great lords were very independent of kings; they maintained liberty for themselves, if indeed they can be free themselves who impose servitude on others. Hungary in its present state may convey an idea of this form of government, which must be allowed to possess grandeur for those who participate in it.3
The Champs-de-Mai,4 so often referred to in the history of France, might be called the democratic government