or order in the society as give able men the opportunity * So far we have dealt with the political, social, and material causes of the Revolution. It remains to consider the part which literature played in preparing the minds of men for change in the direction of democracy. The doctrines of the Economists were directly opposed to the principles on which French policy and institutions were based. They held that the well-being of individuals and of societies depended on the recognition of the two rights of liberty and property. The business of government according to them was simply to secure and protect these two rights. They justified property as a condition of civilization and of material prosperity; and * This name is generally used to describe a body of politicoeconomical writers of whom Quesnay (1694-1774) is the best known. They are sometimes described by the name of physiocrates, which is derived from two Greek words signifying the rule of nature, because they were opposed to all arbitrary interference with nature's laws. 307 if Burli they taught that man's pursuit of his own interest should only be limited by his natural sense of justice, which teaches him that no man may do what would be injurious to the public. Holding these opinions, they were of course opposed to the restrictive commercial policy of the French government. They were also, on economic grounds, opposed to the military spirit which had generally dictated the foreign policy of France as of other European countries. Young records in his diary for 1789 that, during the negotiations as to the manner in which the states general should sit, both Paris and the Provinces swarmed with pamphlets, republican in tone, and hostile to nobility and clergy. The cafés, he says, were crowded with listeners to seditious oratory. He noticed a general ignorance as to the principles of government, and a strange and unaccountable appeal to visionary rights of nature. The bitterness of orators and writers was aggravated by the disgusting tenacity with which the nobles clung to all their old rights, no matter how hardly they bore upon the people. Everywhere the origin of government, the principles of legislation, the natural rights of man, and the limits of authority, were being discussed. There was a general demand for what is simple and natural as opposed to what is complicated, arbitrary, or conventional. It is easy to understand how the oppressed classes in France would welcome the doctrine that men are by nature equal and free. It is curious to note that the nobles welcomed the men of letters in their houses, and amused themselves with their ingenuity, not foreseeing that their doctrines would soon be acted on by an angry people. We need not wonder that the people were attracted by ideals of society in which all was simple, uniform, equitable, and reasonable. The Revolution in America added to the influence of speakers and writers, for the Americans seemed to have realized the ideal of philosophy. The current ideas of the time are, perhaps, best expressed in the writings of Tom Paine. He was connected with the Revolutions both of America and France and it is with his name, rather than with that of Rousseau, that the phrase "The rights of man is properly connected. His reply to Burke's Reflections is well known. Society, according to him, arose out of human wants and imperfections. When society was once formed, men were not virtuous enough to live together without control. In order, therefore, to secure freedom and safety, they were obliged to establish government, which, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence. In a small society the whole body of the members formed the Parliament, each man sitting in it by "natural right." As society and its affairs extended, government by representation was necessarily introduced, a community of interests being kept up between representatives and constituents by frequent elections. Monarchy is inconsistent with the equal rights which all possess by nature. The establishment of an hereditary monarchy is an insult and imposition on posterity. Nature denounces it by producing fools in every dynasty. Most hereditary monarchies owe their origin not to consent but to force. Kings are by their position shut out from all knowledge of their subjects, and from all community of interest with them. The subjects become mere instruments for gratifying the passions of the monarch, or for serving family and dynastic interests. Aristocracy also violates nature. It creates titular distinctions, and so sets up conventional inequalities between man and man. To maintain these it establishes primogeniture, by which it creates unnatural and unjust distinctions between the children of the same parents. It generally leads to that monstrosity, the hereditary legislator. It sets up a privileged Church, which implies a right to dictate to the Creator what worship He shall receive. The only legitimate government is one founded on "The Rights of Man" and the authority of the people-Sovereignty is fixed by nature in the people. It means the right to elect representatives, and, of course, to displace them and substitute others. When the sovereignty has been wrested from the people, there is no freedom. Only the despot is free. His will is law. On the other hand, when the people is sovereign, the public good is the end of government for every one feels that an attack on the rights of another impairs his own security. In order to determine the limits of the powers of representatives we must see what the power of the people was under the original compact. Society has no power to order or to do injustice, to break contracts, or to tyrannize over any. The representatives can pass laws, and, of course, alter them when experience shows alteration to be necessary. They also act for the state in its dealings with other states or with individuals. What they do in this capacity they cannot annul, because their acts create rights in others. The limits of authority are easily deducible from the principle that men, being born into the world with equal rights, formed societies simply to secure those natural rights. Man, as man, has intellectual rights, and the right of acting for his own safety and happiness, wherever, by so doing, he does not violate the natural rights of others. Civil rights are those natural rights which the individual is not strong enough to maintain or secure to himself, and which, therefore, he hands over to the society. Such, for instance, is the right to redress of injury. There can, however, be no civil right which is not thus founded on a natural right. Nor has any society a right to invade those natural rights, such as freedom of judgment, which the individual retains, because, with regard to them, he stands in need of no assistance. All governments which have not grown out of, or which violate, the social compact, have their origin either in force or in fraud. Since every citizen is a member of the sovereignty, and, as such, can acknowledge no personal subjection, his obedience being only to the laws, it follows that a general revolution in the principle and construction of governments is necessary. The constitution represents the formal act by which a people creates its government and defines its power. The government, therefore, is simply the agent of the people's will. No individual or body has any right to any authority which it has not derived from the nation. One generation cannot bind the next, as the rights of each generation are the same. Republican government, which means government in the public interest, is the only government sound in principle. It will take the form of representative government, now that pure democracies, such as Greece presented, are impossible. Aristocratic and monarchical governments cannot have the knowledge, and may not have the will, to secure |