STRUGGLE BETWEEN THE THREE SOCIAL ELEMENTS.
When once these three elements of government, monarchy, aristocracy,
and democracy, began each to contend for the ascendency, the most
certain means of securing the victory to monarchy, to the exclusion
of the other two elements, was to drive one of these latter into acts
of turbulence and outrage; for it thus became absolutely necessary to
establish one sole, powerful, unfettered centre of action, that would
be able to awe the turbulent and to insure public order. Now, just
at this time, the position of the popular element was full of hope,
but also beset with dangers; and hence, to preserve the influence
it had already acquired, and to increase its ascendency and power,
the greatest moderation and circumspection were requisite. Monarchy
had already acquired great power, and, having obtained it in part by
espousing the cause of the people against the lords, it came to be
regarded as the natural protector of popular interests. It certainly
had some claims to this title, but no less certainly did it find in
this circumstance a most favorable opportunity for extending its power
to an unlimited degree, at the expense of the rights and liberties of
the people.
There existed a germ of division between the aristocracy and the
commons, which afforded the monarchs an opportunity of curtailing the
rights and powers of the lords, convinced, moreover, as they were, that
any measure tending to such an object would be well received by the
multitude. But, on the other hand, the monarch might rest assured that
the lords would hail with delight any act tending to humble the people,
who already had raised their heads so high when the feudal aristocracy
was to be resisted; and, in this case, if the people committed any
excesses, if they adopted maxims and doctrines subversive of public
order, no one could prevent the monarch from putting a stop to their
proceedings by all possible means. The lords, who were powerful enough
to repress such disorders themselves, would very naturally be glad to
leave such a work to the monarch, fearing lest the people, in their
exasperation against them, might deprive them of their prerogatives,
their honors, their property, and even of their lives; or from the
secret satisfaction they would naturally feel at seeing that rival
power brought down which had recently humbled themselves, and whose
rivalry had been maintained through so many and such ferocious
struggles. In such an undertaking, the lords would naturally bring
the whole weight of their influence to the support of the monarch,
thus taking advantage of the false direction given to the popular
movement to revenge themselves upon the people, whilst veiling their
vengeance under the pretext of public utility. The people, it is true,
possessed various means of defence; but when isolated and opposed to
the throne, they found these means too weak to afford them any hope of
victory. Learning, indeed, was no longer the exclusive patrimony of any
privileged class, but knowledge had not had time to become diffused so
far as to form a public opinion strong enough to exercise any direct
influence upon the affairs of government. The art of printing was
already producing its results, but was not yet sufficiently developed
to produce that rapid and extensive circulation of ideas which has
subsequently been attained. Notwithstanding the efforts everywhere
made at that time to promote the diffusion of knowledge, we need only
understand correctly the nature and character of the knowledge of the
period, to be convinced that neither in substance nor in form was
it calculated to become, to any general extent, the property of the
popular classes. Thanks to the progress of commerce and the arts, there
arose, it is true, a new description of wealth, destined of necessity
to become the patrimony of the people. But commerce and the arts were
then in their infancy, and did not possess either the extent or the
influence which, at a later period, connected them intimately with
every branch of society. Except in some few countries of very little
importance, the position of the merchant and the artizan could not
secure them any great amount of influence of itself.
Considering the course of events, and the elevation which royal power
had acquired on the ruins of feudalism, the only means for restricting
monarchical power, until the democratic element should have acquired
sufficient force to be respected, was the union of the aristocracy
with the people. But such a coalition was not easily to be obtained,
since between the aristocracy and the people there existed so much
animosity and rivalry--a rivalry which, to a certain extent, was
inevitable, owing to the opposition of their respective interests.
We must bear in mind, however, that the nobility were not the only
aristocracy; there was another much more powerful and influential than
they--the clergy. This latter class was at that time possessed of all
the ascendency and influence which both moral and material means can
confer; in fact, besides the religious character, which insured the
respect and veneration of the people, they were possessed, at the same
time, of abundant riches; which easily secured to them, on the one
hand, gratitude and influence; and, on the other, made them feared by
the great, and respected by monarchs. Now, here is one of the leading
mistakes of Protestantism: to crush the power of the clergy at such a
time, was to accelerate the complete victory of absolute monarchy, to
leave the people defenceless, the monarch unrestrained, aristocracy
without a bond of union, without a vital principle; it was to prevent
the three elements--monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy--from uniting
to form a limited government, towards which almost all the European
nations appeared to be inclining. We have already seen that it was
not at that time expedient to isolate the people, for their political
existence was still feeble and precarious; and it is no less evident
that the nobility, as a means of government, ought not to have been
left to themselves. This class, possessing no other vital principle
than that derived from their titles and privileges, were incapable of
resisting the attacks continually aimed at them by the royal power. In
spite of themselves, the nobility were under the necessity of yielding
to the monarch's will, of abandoning their inaccessible castles,
to resort to the sumptuous palaces of kings, and play the part of
courtiers.
Protestantism crushed the power of the clergy, not only in the
countries in which it succeeded in implanting its errors, but also in
others. In fact, where it could not fully introduce itself, its ideas,
when not in open opposition to the Catholic faith, exercised a certain
degree of influence. From that time the power of the clergy lost its
principal support in the political influence of the Popes, for whilst
kings assumed a tone of greater boldness against the pretensions of the
Holy See, the Popes, on their side, that they might give no pretext, no
occasion for the declamations of Protestants, were obliged to act with
great circumspection in every thing relating to temporal affairs. All
this has been regarded as the progress of European civilization,--as
one step towards liberty; however, the rapid sketch which I have just
given of the political condition of that period, clearly proves that,
instead of taking the surest way to the development of representative
forms, the road to absolute monarchy was chosen. Protestantism,
interested in crushing by all possible means the power of the Popes,
exalted that of kings even in spiritual matters. By thus concentrating
in their hands the spiritual and temporal powers, it left the throne
without any sort of counterpoise. By destroying the hope of obtaining
liberty by peaceable means, it led the people to have recourse to
force, and opened the crater of those revolutions which have cost
modern Europe so many tears.
In order that the forms of political liberty should take root and
attain to perfection, they were not to be forced prematurely from
the atmosphere which gave them birth; for in this atmosphere existed
together the monarchical, aristocratical, and popular elements,
all strengthened and directed by the Catholic religion; under the
influence of this same religion, these elements were being gradually
combined, politics were not to be separated from religion. Instead
of regarding the clergy as a fatal element, it was important to look
upon them as a mediator among all classes and powers, ready to calm
the ardor of strife, to place bounds against excess, to prevent the
exclusive preponderance of the monarch, the nobility, or the people.
Whenever powers and interests of different natures are to be combined,
a mediator is essential, or some sort of intervention to prevent
violent shocks; if this mediator does not exist in the very nature of
the circumstances, recourse must be had to the law for the creation
of one. From this it is evident what an evil Protestantism inflicted
upon Europe; since its first act was completely to isolate the temporal
power, to place it in rivalship and hostility to the spiritual, and
to leave no mediator between the monarch and the people. The lay
aristocracy at once lost their political influence; for they had now
lost their force and bond of union, which they derived from their
connection with the ecclesiastical aristocracy. When once the nobles
were reduced to mere courtiers, the power of the throne was entirely
without a counterpoise.
I have said it, and I repeat it, that the strengthening of the royal
power, even at the expense of the rights and liberties of the lords
and of the commons, tended powerfully to the maintenance of public
order, and consequently to the progress of civilization; but, at the
same time, the extreme preponderance obtained by this power is much to
be lamented; and it may be well to reflect, that one of the principal
causes of this preponderance was the removal of the clergy from the
sphere of politics. At the commencement of the sixteenth century, the
question no longer was, whether those numerous castles should be left
standing, from the heights of which proud barons gave the law to their
vassals, and held themselves justified in despising the ordinances of
the monarch; nor whether that long list of communal liberties should be
preserved, which had no connection with each other, which were opposed
to the pretensions of the great, and at the same time embarrassed the
action of the sovereign, by preventing the formation of a central
government capable of insuring order, of protecting legitimate
interests, of giving an impulse to the movement of civilization, which
had everywhere commenced with so much activity. This was no longer
the question; on all sides the castles were being levelled, the great
lords were descending from their fortresses, and becoming more humane
towards the people; they were giving up their exactions, and beginning
to show respect to the power of the monarch; and the commons, obliged
to submit to an amalgamation of the multitude of petty states, to form
extensive monarchies, were forced to part with so much of their rights
and liberties as was opposed to the system of general centralization.
The question was, to discover whether there existed any means of
limiting power, and yet securing to the people the benefits of its
centralization and augmentation; whether it was possible, without
embarrassing or weakening the action of power, to secure to the people
a reasonable amount of influence over the progress of affairs, and,
above all, the right they had already acquired of watching over the
public revenues. That is, at once to prevent the sanguinary horrors
of revolutions, and the abuses and disorders of court favorites. The
people alone were incapable of preserving this influence, unless
they had been furnished with a knowledge of the public affairs; an
indispensable resource in such a case, but of which they were in
general completely destitute. I do not mean to deny the existence of
a certain kind of knowledge amongst the commons; but we must bear
in mind that the term _public affairs_ had acquired an extensive
signification; for it was not merely applied to a municipality or
a province; centralization becoming everywhere more general and
triumphant, caused this term to be applied to whole kingdoms, not
merely considered as isolated, but in the whole of their relations with
other nations. From that time European civilization began to assume
that character of _generality_, which still distinguishes it: from that
time, to understand aright the private affairs of any one kingdom, it
was necessary to look abroad over the whole of Europe, sometimes over
the whole world. Men capable of such elevated views could not be very
common in society; moreover, as the most exalted part of society was
attracted by the splendor of the throne of the monarch, a focus of
intelligence was sure to be formed there, with exclusive pretensions to
the government. Compare with this centre of action and intelligence,
the people alone, still weak and ignorant, and the result may be
easily guessed. Weakness and ignorance never prevailed over force and
intelligence. But, what remedy was there for this difficulty? The
preservation of the Catholic religion all over Europe, and consequently
the influence of the clergy; for it is well known that the clergy were
still considered at this epoch as the centre of learning.
Those who have extolled Protestantism for having weakened the influence
of the Catholic clergy, have not sufficiently reflected upon the
nature of that influence. It would have been difficult to discover at
that epoch a class of citizens connected with the three elements of
power by common interests with each, and yet not exclusively allied
to any. Monarchy had nothing to fear from the clergy. In fact, how
can we imagine that the ministers of a religion regarding power as an
emanation from Heaven would declare themselves the enemies of royal
power, which was acknowledged to be at the head of all others? Neither
had the aristocracy any thing to apprehend on the part of the clergy,
so long as they did not outstep the bounds of reason. The titles, by
virtue of which they claimed the possession of riches, their rights to
a certain degree of consideration and of precedence were not likely to
be combated by a class whose principles and interests were necessarily
favorable to every thing within the bounds of reason, of justice, and
of the laws. The democracy, comprising the generality of the people,
found support and most generous protection in the Church. How could the
Church, which had labored so much to emancipate them from the ancient
slavery, and at a later period from feudal chains, declare herself
the enemy of a class which might be considered as her creature? If
the people experienced an amelioration in their civil condition, it
was owing to the efforts of the clergy; if they acquired political
influence, it was owing to the amelioration of their condition--another
favor obtained through the influence of the clergy; and if the clergy
had any where a sure support, it was natural to look for it in that
popular class which, continually in contact with them, received from
them their inspirations and instructions.
Besides, the Church selected her members indiscriminately from all
classes. To elevate a man to the sacred ministry she required neither
titles of nobility nor riches, and this alone was sufficient to insure
intimate relations between the clergy and the people, and to prevent
the latter from regarding them with aversion and estrangement. Hence
the clergy, united to all classes, were an element perfectly adapted
to prevent the exclusive preponderance of any of these classes, to
maintain all social elements in a certain gentle and productive
fermentation, which in time would have produced and matured a natural
combination. I do not mean to assert that there would not have arisen
differences, disputes, perhaps conflicts, inevitable occurrences so
long as men shall be men; but who does not see that the terrible
effusion of blood in the wars of Germany, in the revolutions of England
and France, would have been impossible? It will be said, perhaps, that
the spirit of European civilization necessarily tended to diminish the
extreme inequality of classes; I grant it, and will even add, that this
tendency was conformable to the principles and maxims of the Christian
religion, continually reminding men of their equality before God,
of their common origin and destination, of the emptiness of honors
and riches, and proclaiming that virtue is the only thing solid upon
earth, the only thing capable of rendering us pleasing in the eyes of
God. But to reform is not to destroy; to cure the disease, we must not
kill the patient. It was deemed better to overthrow at one blow what
might have been corrected by legal means; European civilization having
been corrupted by the fatal innovations of the sixteenth century,
legitimate authority having been disregarded even in matters within its
exclusive sphere, its mild and beneficent action has been replaced by
the disastrous expedients of violence. Three centuries of calamity have
more or less opened the eyes of nations, by teaching them how perilous
it is, even for the success of an enterprise, to confide it to the
cruel hazard of the employment of force; but it is probable that if
Protestantism, like an apple of discord, had not been thrown into the
middle of Europe, all these great social and political questions would,
at the present time, be much nearer being solved in a safe, peaceable,
and certain manner, if, indeed, they had not been already solved long
since.[38]