CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTY AND THE FRENCH REVOLUTION
_Progress in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries_.--It is not easy
to mark in brief space the steps of progress in the complex activities
of the great movements of society of the first centuries of the period
of modern history. It is not possible to relate the details of the
great historical movements, with their many phases of life moving on
toward great achievements. Only a few of the salient and vital
features may be presented, but these will be sufficient to show the
resultant general achievements coming from the interaction of a
multitude of forces of an expanding civilization. The great
determiners of this period are found in the national life of England,
France, Germany, and America. Out of many complex movements and causes
the dominant factor is the struggle of monarchy and democracy. The
revival of learning, the Protestant revolution, and the attempts at
popular government heralded the coming of political liberty and the
recognition of the rights of man. The whole complex is a vivid example
of the processes of social evolution through the interaction of groups,
each moving about a central idea. Again and again when freedom of mind
and liberty of action seem to be successful, they have been obscured by
new social maladies or retarded by adverse environmental conditions.
_The Struggle of Monarchy with Democracy_.--In a previous chapter, in
which were recounted the early attempts at popular representation, it
was shown that in nearly every instance the rise of popular power was
suppressed by the rapid and universal growth of monarchy. Having
obtained power by combining with the people in their struggle against
the nobility, monarchy finally denied the people the right to {393}
participate in the government. It was recognized nearly everywhere in
Europe as the dominant type of government through which all nations
must pass. Through it the will of the people was to find expression,
or, to use a more exact statement, monarchy proposed to express the
will of the people without asking their permission.
The intellectual revival which spread over Europe tended to free the
mind from the binding power of tradition, prestige, and dogmatism, and
to give it freedom in religious belief. But while these great
movements were taking place, monarchy was being established in Europe,
and wherever monarchy was established without proper checks of
constitutional government, it became powerful and arbitrary to such a
degree as to force the people into a mighty cry for political liberty.
In France royalty ran rapidly into imperialism; in Spain it became
oppressive; but in England there was a decided check upon its absolute
assumptions by way of slowly developing constitutional liberty.
_Struggle for Constitutional Liberty in England_.--For a long period
monarchy had to struggle fiercely with the feudal nobility of England,
but finally came off conqueror, and then assumed such arbitrary powers
as appeared necessary for the government of the realm of England. It
was inevitable, however, that in a people whose minds had been
emancipated from absolute spiritual power and given freedom of thought,
a conflict would eventually occur with monarchy which had suppressed
municipal liberty, feudal nobility, and popular representation. Pure
monarchy sought at all times the suppression of political liberty.
Hence, in England, there began a struggle against the assumptions of
absolute monarchy and in favor of the liberty of the people.
There grew up in England under the Tudors an advocacy of the inherited
rights of kings. There was a systematic development of arbitrary power
until monarchy in England declared itself superior to all laws and to
all constitutional rights and duties. In another place it has been
told how the English {394} Reformation was carried on by the kings as a
political institution, how the authority of Rome was overthrown and the
kings of England seized the opportunity to enhance their power and
advance their own interests. When the people realized that they had
exchanged an arbitrary power in Rome for an arbitrary power in England,
centred in the king, they cried out again at this latter tyranny, and
sought for religious reform against the authority of the church.
This movement was accompanied by a desire for political reform, also.
Indeed, all civil and religious authority centred in one person, the
king, and a reform of religious administration could not take place
without a reform of the political. The activity of English commerce
and the wide-spread influence of the revival of learning, which
developed a new and independent literary culture, made life intense and
progress rapid. When this spirit of political liberty sought
expression in England, it found it in the ancient privileges and rights
of the English people, to which they sought to return. It was
unfortunate that the desires for political liberty on the continent
found no such means to which they could attach their ideas of a liberal
government. In England we find these old rights and privileges a ready
support for the principles of constitutional liberty. There were many
precedents and examples of liberty which might be recalled for the
purpose of quickening the zeal of the people--many, indeed, had been
continued in local communities.
Nor were the English government and law wanting in the principles of
liberty which had been handed down from former generations. Moreover,
it became necessary, as a practical measure, for the kings of England,
if they desired to maintain their position, to call a parliament of the
people for the sake of their co-operation and help in the support of
the government. It is seen, therefore, that in England the spirit of
constitutional liberty, though perhaps suppressed at times, never
perished, though the assumption of royal power was very great, and when
the party which was seeking to carry forward {395} religious reform
joined itself to the party seeking political liberty, there was aroused
a force in England which would be sure to prove a check on royalty and
insure the rights and privileges of a free people.
Though the sentiment for religious reform was general throughout
England, this principle was viewed in many different ways by different
parties. Thus the pure-monarchy party saw many evils in the laws of
England and in the administration of affairs, and sought reform, but
without yielding anything of the high conception of the absolute power
of the king. They believed that the ancient laws and precedents of
England were a check upon monarchy sufficient to reform all abuses of
power that might arise. They acknowledged the divine right of kings
and thought that royalty possessed a superior power, but they held that
it was obliged, for its own preservation and the proper government of
the realm, to confine its activity within certain limits. Two other
parties, the one political and the other religious, went hand in hand,
both for revolution. The former denied the absolute sovereignty of the
king and sought a great change in the form, the spirit, and the
structure of government. They held that the ultimate power of control
should rest in the House of Commons as the representative of the
people. The latter party sought the same process within the church.
They held that it should be controlled by assemblages of the people,
maintained that decentralization should take place and the constitution
of the church be changed as well as its form of administration. It is
easy to see that the leaders of either of these parties were also
leaders of the other. A fourth party sought to repudiate the
constitution, as radically wrong, and to build up an entirely new
political system. It disregarded the past life of England and
repudiated all precedents, desiring to build up a new government
founded upon abstract theories of right and justice.
The course of history under these four parties is plain. Each one,
struggling for power, tried to manage the government {396} upon its
particular theory, and signally failed. The struggle in the House of
Commons, had it not finally brought about such great consequences,
would be disgusting and discouraging in the extreme. The struggle in
England for liberty of conscience and for government of the people
through Parliament went on through turmoil and disgrace for two
centuries. It was king against the people, Catholic against
Protestant, and, within the latter group, Anglican, Presbyterian, and
independent, each against one another. All sorts of unjust and inhuman
practices were indulged in. It would seem that the spirit of Magna
Charta and of the Christian religion was constantly outraged.
When Henry VIII, in 1521, wrote his attack on Luther embodied in the
_Assertion of the Seven Sacraments_, Pope Leo X gave him the title of
"Defender of the Faith." Subsequently, when he appealed to the pope to
help him settle his marital difficulties, the pope refused to support
him, and finally excommunicated him for divorcing his wife Catherine.
This led to a break with Rome, and the Supremacy Act, which made the
king protector and only supreme head of the church and clergy of
England. This inaugurated the long struggle between Catholic and
Protestant, with varying fortunes to each side. The Tudor period
closed with the death of Elizabeth, in 1603, with a fairly
well-established conformity to the Anglican Church; but Puritanism was
growing slowly but surely, which meant a final disruption. From this
time on there was confusion of political and religious affairs for
another century.
In 1621 Parliament rebuked King James I for his high-handed proceedings
with protestation: "That the liberties, franchises, privileges, and
jurisdictions of Parliament are the ancient and undoubted birthright
and inheritance of the subjects of England, and that the arduous and
urgent affairs of the king, state, and defense of the realm ... are
proper subjects and matters of council and debate in Parliament." The
king tore the page containing the resolution from the journal of
Parliament; but this did not retard the struggle for the {397}
recognition of ancient rights. The strife went on throughout the reign
of the Stuarts, until Charles I lost his head and the nation was
plunged into a great civil war.
There finally appeared on the scene of action a man of destiny.
Cromwell, seizing the opportunity, turned everything toward democracy,
and ruled republicans, Puritans, and royalists with such an iron hand
that his painful democracy came to a sudden close through reaction
under the rule of his successor. The Stuarts again came into power,
and, believing in the divine right of kings--a principle which seems to
have been imbibed from the imperialism of France--sought to bring
everything into subordination to royalty. The people, weary of the
irregular government caused by the attempts of the different parties to
rule, and tired of the abuses and irregularities of the administration,
welcomed the restoration of royalty as an advantage to the realm. But
the Stuarts sought not only to rule with high hand, regardless of the
wants, desires, and will of the people, but also to bring back the
absolute authority of the papacy. By their arbitrary, high-handed
proceedings, they brought the English government to a crisis which was
ended only by the coming of William of Orange to rule upon the throne
with constitutional right; for the people seized their opportunity to
demand a guaranty of the rights of freemen which would thoroughly
establish the principle of constitutional liberty in England.
But the declaration of Parliament at the accession of William and Mary,
which subsequently was enacted as a famous Bill of Rights, showed a
great permanent gain in constitutional liberty. It centred the power
in Parliament, whose authority was in the Commons. It was true the
arbitrary power of kings came to the front during the rule of the four
Georges, but it was without avail, and reform measures followed their
reign. Constitutional government had won. It is true that the
revolution failed to establish religious toleration, but it led the way
with rapid strides.
In the progress of civil liberty and freedom of conscience in {398}
England, the literature of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries had
a powerful influence. In the world of ideas, freedom of thought found
expression through the great writers. While few attacked the evils of
government, they were not wanting in setting forth high ideals of life,
liberty, and justice. Such men as John Milton, John Locke, John
Bunyan, and Shakespeare turned the thinking world toward better things
in government and life.
Thus England had a check on the growth of monarchy, while freedom of
investigation led to an inquiry about the rights of the people; hence,
the seeds of popular liberty were growing at the time monarchy was
making its greatest assumption. The people never yielded, in theory at
least, their ancient rights to the absolute control of royalty.
Kingship in England was developed through service, and while the
English were strong for monarchy because it expressed a unity of the
nation, they expected the king to consider the rights of the people,
which gave rise to a complex movement in England, making for religious
and political liberty, in which all classes were engaged in some degree
at different times.
In France, however, it was different. At first the feudal nobility
ruled with absolute sway. It continued in power long enough to direct
the thoughts of the people toward it and to establish itself as a
complete system. It had little opposition in the height of its power.
When monarchy arose it, too, had the field all to itself. People
recognized this as the only legitimate form of government. Again, when
monarchy failed, people rushed enthusiastically to democracy, and in
their wild enthusiasm made of it a government of terror. How different
were the results. In England there was a slow evolution of
constitutional government in which the rights of the people, the king,
the nobility, and the clergy were respected, and each class fell into
its proper place in the government. In France, each separate power
made its attempt to govern, and failed. Its history points to a truth,
namely, that no kind of government is safe without a system of checks.
{399}
_The Place of France in Modern Civilization_.--Guizot tries to show
that in the seventeenth century France led the civilization of the
world; that while Louis XIV was carrying absolute government to its
greatest height, philosophy, art, and letters flourished; that France,
by furnishing unique and completed systems, has led the European world
in civilization. To a great extent this is true, for France had better
opportunities to develop an advanced civilization than any other
European nation. It must be remembered that France, at an early
period, was completely Romanized, and never lost the force and example
of the Roman civilization; and, also, that in the invasion of the
Norman, the northern spirit gave France vigor, while its crude forms
were overcome by the more cultured forms of French life.
While other nations were still in turmoil France developed a distinct
and separate nationality. At an early period she cast off the power of
Rome and maintained a separate ecclesiastical system which tended to
develop an independent spirit and further increase nationality. Her
population was far greater than that of any other nation, and her
wealth and national resources were vastly superior to those of others.
These elements gave France great prestige and great power, and fitted
her to lead in civil progress. They permitted her to develop a high
state of civilization. If the genius of the French people gave them
adaptability in communicating their culture to others, it certainly was
of service to Europe. Yet the service of France must not be too highly
estimated. If, working in the dark, other nations, not so far advanced
as France on account of material causes, were laying a foundation of
the elements of civilization, which were to be of vast importance in
the development of the race, it would appear that as great credit
should be given them as to the French manners, genius, and culture
which gave so little permanent benefit to the world. Guizot wisely
refrains from elaborating the vices of the French monarchy, and fails
to point out the failure of the French system of government.
{400}
_The Divine Right of Kings_.--From the advent of the Capetian dynasty
of French kings royalty continually increased its power until it
culminated under Louis XIV. The court, the clergy, and, in fact, the
greater number of the preachers of France, advocated the divine origin
and right of kings. If God be above all and over all, his temporal
rulers as well as his spiritual rulers receive their power from him;
hence the king receives his right to rule from God. Who, then, has the
right to oppose the king? Upon this theory the court preachers adored
him and in some instances deified him. People sought to touch the hem
of his garment, or receive from his divine majesty even a touch of the
hand, that they might be healed of their infirmities. In literature
Louis was praised and deified. The "Grand Monarch" was lauded and
worshipped by the courtiers and nobles who circled around him. He
maintained an extravagant court and an elaborate etiquette, so
extravagant that it depleted the rural districts of money, and drew the
most powerful families to revolve around the king.
The extravagant life paralyzed the energies of kings and ministers, who
built a government for the advantage of the governing and not the
governed. "I am the state!" said the Grand Monarch. Although showing
in many ways an enlightened absolutism, his rule plunged French royalty
into despotism. Louis XV held strongly to absolutism, but lacked the
power to render it attractive and magnificent. Louis XVI attempted to
stem the rising tide, but it was too late. The evils were too deeply
seated; they could not be changed by any temporary expedient. French
royalty reached a logical outcome from all power to no power. Louis
XIV had built a strong, compact administration under the direction of
able men, but it was wanting in liberty, it was wanting in justice, and
it is only a matter of time when these deficiencies in a nation lead to
destruction.
_The Power of the Nobility_.--The French nobility had been mastered by
the king, but to keep them subservient, to make them circle around
royalty and chant its praises, they were {401} given a large extension
of rights and privileges. They were exempt from the responsibilities
for crime; they occupied all of the important places in church and
state; they were exempt from taxation; many who dwelt at the court with
the king lived off the government; many were pensioned by the
government, their chief recommendation apparently being idleness and
worthlessness. There was a great gulf between the peasantry and the
nobility. The latter had control of all the game of the forests and
the fish in the rivers; one-sixth of all the grain grown in the realm
went to the nobility, as did also one-sixth of all the land sold, and
all confiscated property fell to them. The peasants had no rights
which the nobility were bound to respect. The nobility, with all of
the emoluments of office, owned, with the clergy, two-thirds of all the
land. Yet this unproductive class numbered only about 83,000 families.
_The Misery of the People_.--If the nobility despised the lower classes
and ignored their rights, they in turn were hated intensely by those
whom they sought to degrade. The third estate in France was divided
into the bourgeoisie and the peasantry and small artisans. The former
gradually deteriorated in character and tended toward the condition of
the lowest classes. By the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, a large
number of the bourgeoisie, or middle class, was driven from France.
This deprived France of the class that would have stood by the nation
when it needed support, and would have stood for moderate
constitutional government against the radical democrats like
Robespierre and Marat.
The lowest class, composed of small peasant farmers, laborers, and
artisans, were improved a little under the reign of Louis XIV, but this
made them feel more keenly the degradation in succeeding years, from
which there was no relief. The condition of the people indicated that
a revolution was on its way. In the evolution of European society the
common man was crowded down toward the condition of serfdom. The
extravagances and luxuries of life, the power of kings, bishops, and
nobles bore like a burden of heavy weight upon his {402} shoulders. He
was the common fodder that fed civilization, and because of this more
than anything else, artificial systems of society were always running
for a fall, for the time must come when the burdens destroy the
foundation and the superstructure comes tumbling down.
_The Church_.--The church earned an important position in France soon
after the conquest by the Romans; seizing opportunities, it came into
power by right of service. It brought the softening influences of
religion; it established government where there was no government; it
furnished a home for the vanquished and the oppressed; it preserved
learning from the barbarians; it conquered and controlled the warlike
spirit of the Germans; it provided the hungry with food, and by
teaching agriculture added to the economic wealth of the community; and
finally, it became learned, and thus brought order out of chaos.
Surely the church earned its great position, and reaped its reward.
Taine says:
"Its popes for two hundred years were the dictators of Europe. It
organized crusades, dethroned monarchs, and distributed kingdoms. Its
bishops and abbots became here sovereign princes and there veritable
founders of dynasties. It held in its grasp a third of the territory,
one-half the revenue, and two-thirds of the capital of Europe."
The church was especially strong in France. It was closely allied to
the state, and opposed everything that opposed the state. When the
king became the state, the church upheld the king. The church of
France, prior to the revolution, was rich and aristocratic. In 1789
its property was valued at 4,000,000,000 francs, and its income at
200,000,000 francs; to obtain a correct estimate according to our
modern measure of value, these amounts should be doubled. In some
territories the clergy owned one-half the soil, in others
three-fourths, and in one, at least, fourteen-seventeenths of the land.
The Abbey of St.-Germain-des-Pres possessed 900,000 acres. Yet within
the church were found both the wealthy and the poverty-stricken. In
one community was a bishop rolling in luxury {403} and ease, in another
a wretched, half-starved country curate trying to carry the gospel to
half-starved people. Such extremes were shocking commentaries upon a
church founded on democracy.
The church persecuted the literary men who expressed freedom of thought
and opinion. It ignored facts and the people distrusted it. The
religious reformation in France became identified with political
factions, which brought the church into a prominent place in the
government and made it take an important place in the revolution. It
had succeeded in suppressing all who sought liberty, either political
or religious, and because of its prominence in affairs, it was the
first institution to feel the storm of the revolution. The church in
France was attacked fully forty years before the king and the nobility
were arraigned by the enraged populace.
_Influence of the Philosophers_.--There appeared in France in the reign
of Louis XV what was known as "the new literature," in contrast with
the classic literature of the previous reign. The king and the church
combined fought this new literature, because it had a tendency to
endanger absolutism. It was made by such brilliant men as Helvetius,
Montesquieu, Voltaire, Condillac, and Rousseau. Perhaps the writings
of these men had more to do with the precipitation of the revolution
than the arbitrary assumptions of royalty, the wretchedness of the
people, the supercilious abuses of the nobility, and the corruption of
the church.
Without presenting the various philosophies of these writers, it may be
said that they attacked the systems of government, religion, and
philosophy prevailing in France, and each succeeding writer more boldly
proclaimed the evils of the day. Condillac finally convinced the
people that they owed their evil conditions to the institutions of
church and state under which they lived, and showed that, if they
desired a change, all it was necessary to do was to sweep those
institutions away. Other philosophers speculated on the best means of
improving the government. Presenting ideal forms of {404} government
and advocating principles not altogether certain in practice, they made
it seem, through these speculative theories, that a perfect government
is possible.
Of the great writers of France prior to the revolution who had a
tremendous power in hastening the downfall of the royal regime, three
stand out more prominently than others, namely, Voltaire, Montesquieu,
and Rousseau. Voltaire, keen critic and satirist, attacked the evils
of society, the maladministration of courts and government, the
dogmatism of the church, and aided and defended the victims of the
system. He was a student of Shakespeare, Locke, and Newton, and of
English government. He was highly critical but not constructive.
Montesquieu, more philosophical, in his _Spirit of the Laws_ pointed
out the cause of evils, expounded the nature of governments, and upheld
English liberty as worthy the consideration of France. Rousseau,
although he attacked civilization, depicting its miseries and
inconsistencies, was more constructive, for in his _Social Contract_ he
advocated universal suffrage and government by the people through the
principles of natural rights and mutual aid. These writers aroused a
spirit of liberty among the thoughtful which could not do otherwise
than prove destructive to existing institutions.
_The Failure of Government_.--It soon became evident to all that a
failure of the government from a practical standpoint was certain. The
burdens of unequal taxation could no longer be borne; the treasury was
empty; there was no means of raising revenue to support the government
as it was run; there was no one who could manage the finances of the
nation; the administration of justice had fallen into disrepute; even
if there had been an earnest desire to help the various classes of
people in distress, there were no opportunities to do so. Louis XVI,
in his weakness, called the States-General for counsel and advice. It
was the first time the people had been called in council for more than
200 years; monarchy had said it could run the government without the
people, and now, on the verge of destruction, called upon the people to
save it from the {405} wreck. The well-intended king invoked a storm;
his predecessors had sown the wind, he reaped the whirlwind.
_France on the Eve of the Revolution_.--The causes of the revolution
were dependent, in part, upon the peculiarity of the character of the
French people, for in no other way can the sudden outburst or the
course of the revolution be accounted for. Yet a glimpse at the
condition of France before the storm burst will cause one to wonder,
not that it came, but that it was so long delayed.
A careful examination of the facts removes all mystery respecting the
greatest political phenomenon of all history, and makes of it an
essential outcome of previous conditions. The French people were
grossly ignorant of government. The long period of misrule had
distorted every form of legitimate government. One school of political
philosophers gave their attention to pointing out the evils of the
system; another to presenting bright pictures of ideal systems of
government which had never been put in practice. The people found no
difficulty in realizing the abuses of government, for they were intense
sufferers from them, and, having no expression in the management of
affairs, they readily adopted ideal theories for the improvement of
social conditions. Moreover, there was no national unity, no coherence
of classes such as in former days brought strength to the government.
Monarchy was divided against itself; the lay nobility had no loyalty,
but were disintegrated by internal feuds; the people were divided into
opposing classes; the clergy were rent asunder.
Monarchy, though harsh, arbitrary, and unjust, did not have sufficient
coercive force to give a strong rule. The church had lost its moral
influence--indeed, morality was lacking within its organization. It
could persecute heretics and burn books which it declared to be
obnoxious to its doctrines, but it could not work a moral reform, much
less stem the tide that was carrying away its ancient prerogatives.
The nobility had no power in the government, and the dissension between
the crown, the nobility, and the church was continuous and {406}
destructive of all authority. Continuous and disreputable quarrels,
profligacy, extravagance, and idleness characterized each group.
Worst of all was the condition of the peasantry. The commons of
France, numbering twenty-five millions of people, had, let it be said
in their favor, no part in the iniquitous and oppressive government.
They were never given a thought by the rulers except as a means of
revenue. There had grown up another, a middle class, especially in
towns, who had grown wealthy by honest toil, and were living in ease
and luxury, possessed of some degree of culture. They disliked the
nobles, on the one hand, and the peasants, on the other; hated and
opposed the nobility and ignored the common people. This class did not
represent the sterling middle class of England or of modern life, but
were the product of feudalism.
The condition of the rural peasantry is almost beyond description.
Suffering from rack-rents, excessive taxation, and the abuses of the
nobility, they presented a squalor and wretchedness worse than that of
the lowest vassals of the feudal regime. In the large cities collected
the dangerous classes who hated the rich. Ignorant, superstitious,
half-starved, they were ready at a moment's notice to attack the
wealthy and to destroy property.
The economic and financial conditions of the nation were deplorable,
for the yield of wealth decreased under the poorly organized state.
The laborers received such wages as left them at the verge of
starvation and prepared them for open revolution. The revenues
reserved for the support of the government were insufficient for the
common needs, and an empty treasury was the result. The extravagance
of king, court, and nobility had led to excessive expenditures and
gross waste. There were no able ministers to manage the affairs of the
realm on an economic basis. Add to these evils lack of faith, raillery
at decency and virtue, and the poisonous effects of a weak and
irresponsible philosophy, and there are represented sufficient evils to
make a revolution whenever there is sufficient vigor to start it.
{407}
_The Revolution_.--The revolution comes with all of its horrors. The
church is humbled and crushed, the government razed to the ground,
monarchy is beheaded, and the flower of nobility cut off. The wild mob
at first seeks only to destroy; later it seeks to build a new structure
on the ruins. The weak monarch, attempting to stem the tide, is swept
away by its force. He summons the States-General, and the commons
declare themselves the national assembly. Stupendous events follow in
rapid succession--the revolt in Paris, the insubordination of the army,
the commune of Paris, and the storming of the Bastile. The legislative
assembly brings about the constitutional assembly, and laws are enacted
for the relief of the people.
Intoxicated with increasing liberty, the populace goes mad, and the
legislators pass weak and harmful laws. The law-making and
constitutional bodies cannot make laws fast enough to regulate the
affairs of the state. Lawlessness and violence increase until the
"reign of terror" appears with all its indescribable horrors. The rest
is plain. Having levelled all government to the ground, having
destroyed all authority, having shown themselves incapable of
self-government, the French people are ready for Napoleon. Under his
command and pretense they march forth to liberate humanity from
oppression in other nations, but in reality to a world conquest.
_Results of the Revolution_.--The French Revolution was by far the most
stupendous event of modern history. It settled forever in the Western
world the relation of man to government. It taught that absolutism of
any class, if unchecked, must lead sooner or later to the destruction
of all authority. It taught that men, to be capable of
self-government, must be educated in its principles through a long
period, yet proclaimed to the Western world the freedom of man, and
asserted his right to participate in government. While France
temporarily failed to bring about this participation, it awoke the cry
for independence, equality, and fraternity around the world.
The results of the revolution became the common property {408} of all
nations, and a universal sentiment arising from it pervaded every
country, shaping its destiny. The severe blow given to absolutism and
exclusive privilege in church and state settled forever the theory of
the divine right of kings and prelates to govern. The revolution
asserted that the precedent in religious and political affairs must
yield to the necessities of the people; that there is no fixed
principle in government except the right of man to govern himself.
The establishment of the theory of the natural right of man to
participate in government had great influence on succeeding legislation
and modified the policy of surrounding nations. The social-contract
theory was little understood and gave an incorrect notion of the nature
of government. In its historical creation, government was a growth,
continually suiting itself to the changing needs of a people. Its
practice rested upon convenience and precedent, but the real test for
participation in government was capability. But the French Revolution
startled the monarchs of Europe with the assumption of the natural
right of people to self-government. Possibly it is incorrect when
carried to extremes, for the doctrine of natural right must be merged
into the practice of social rights, duties, and privileges. But it was
a check on despotism.
The revolution had an influence on economic life also. It was only a
step from freedom of intellectual opinion to freedom of religious
belief, and only a step from religious freedom to political liberty.
Carried to its legitimate outcome, the growing sentiment of freedom
asserted industrial liberty and economic equality. Its influence in
the emancipation of labor was far-reaching. Many of the theories
advanced in the French Revolution were impracticable; sentiments
engendered were untrue, which in the long run would lead to injustice.
Many of its promises remain unfulfilled, yet its lessons are still
before us, its influence for good or evil continues unabated.
{409}
SUBJECTS FOR FURTHER STUDY
1. The progress in constitutional government was made in England
during the Commonwealth.
2. Changes in the social and economic condition of England from 1603
to 1760.
3. When did the Industrial Revolution begin? What were its causes?
What its results?
4. The rise of British commerce.
5. Effect of commerce on English economic and social life.
6. Of what use to England were her American colonies?
7. The effect of the American Revolution on the French Revolution.
8. The effect of the French Revolution on American liberty.
{413}
_PART V_
MODERN PROGRESS