Part 31 (2/2)

The n.o.bility had no power in the government, and the dissension between the crown, the n.o.bility, 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 cla.s.s, 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 n.o.bles, on the one hand, and the peasants, on the other; hated and opposed the n.o.bility and ignored the common people. This cla.s.s did not represent the sterling middle cla.s.s 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 n.o.bility, they presented a squalor and wretchedness worse than that of the lowest va.s.sals of the feudal regime. In the large cities collected the dangerous cla.s.ses who hated the rich. Ignorant, superst.i.tious, 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 n.o.bility 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 n.o.bility 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 a.s.sembly. 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 a.s.sembly brings about the const.i.tutional a.s.sembly, and laws are enacted for the relief of the people.

Intoxicated with increasing liberty, the populace goes mad, and the legislators pa.s.s weak and harmful laws. The law-making and const.i.tutional 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 cla.s.s, 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 a.s.serted his right to partic.i.p.ate in government. While France temporarily failed to bring about this partic.i.p.ation, 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 a.s.serted 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 partic.i.p.ate 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 partic.i.p.ation in government was capability. But the French Revolution startled the monarchs of Europe with the a.s.sumption 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 a.s.serted industrial liberty and economic equality. Its influence in the emanc.i.p.ation 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 const.i.tutional 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.

<script>