In France, the Revolution was much more gradual.The communes, in taking refuge under the protection of the kings, had found them masters rather than protectors.Their liberty had long since been lost, or, rather, their emancipation had been suspended, when feudalism received its death-blow at the hand of Richelieu.Then liberty halted; the prince of the feudatories held sole and undivided sway.The nobles, the clergy, the commoners, the parliaments, every thing in short except a few seeming privileges, were controlled by the king; who, like his early predecessors, consumed regularly, and nearly always in advance, the revenues of his domain,--and that domain was France.
Finally, '89 arrived; liberty resumed its march; a century and a half had been required to wear out the last form of feudal property,--monarchy.
The French Revolution may be defined as _the substitution of real right for personal right;_ that is to say, in the days of feudalism, the value of property depended upon the standing of the proprietor, while, after the Revolution, the regard for the man was proportional to his property.Now, we have seen from what has been said in the preceding pages, that this recognition of the right of laborers had been the constant aim of the serfs and communes, the secret motive of their efforts.The movement of '89 was only the last stage of that long insurrection.But it seems to me that we have not paid sufficient attention to the fact that the Revolution of 1789, instigated by the same causes, animated by the same spirit, triumphing by the same struggles, was consummated in Italy four centuries ago.Italy was the first to sound the signal of war against feudalism; France has followed; Spain and England are beginning to move; the rest still sleep.If a grand example should be given to the world, the day of trial would be much abridged.
Note the following summary of the revolutions of property, from the days of the Roman Empire down to the present time:--1.Fifth century.-- Barbarian invasions; division of the lands of the empire into independent portions or freeholds.
2.From the fifth to the eighth century.--Gradual concentration of freeholds, or transformation of the small freeholds into fiefs, feuds, tenures, &c.Large properties, small possessions.
Charlemagne (771-814) decrees that all freeholds are dependent upon the king of France.
3.From the eighth to the tenth century.--The relation between the crown and the superior dependents is broken; the latter becoming freeholders, while the smaller dependents cease to recognize the king, and adhere to the nearest suzerain.Feudal system.
4.Twelfth century.--Movement of the serfs towards liberty;emancipation of the communes.
5.Thirteenth century.--Abolition of personal right, and of the feudal system in Italy.Italian Republics.
6.Seventeenth century.--Abolition of feudalism in France during Richelieu's ministry.Despotism.
7.1789.--Abolition of all privileges of birth, caste, provinces, and corporations; equality of persons and of rights.French democracy.
8.1830.--The principle of concentration inherent in individual property is REMARKED.Development of the idea of association.
The more we reflect upon this series of transformations and changes, the more clearly we see that they were necessary in their principle, in their manifestations, and in their result.
It was necessary that inexperienced conquerors, eager for liberty, should divide the Roman Empire into a multitude of estates, as free and independent as themselves.
It was necessary that these men, who liked war even better than liberty, should submit to their leaders; and, as the freehold represented the man, that property should violate property.
It was necessary that, under the rule of a nobility always idle when not fighting, there should grow up a body of laborers, who, by the power of production, and by the division and circulation of wealth, would gradually gain control over commerce, industry, and a portion of the land, and who, having become rich, would aspire to power and authority also.
It was necessary, finally, that liberty and equality of rights having been achieved, and individual property still existing, attended by robbery, poverty, social inequality, and oppression, there should be an inquiry into the cause of this evil, and an idea of universal association formed, whereby, on condition of labor, all interests should be protected and consolidated.
"Evil, when carried too far," says a learned jurist, "cures itself; and the political innovation which aims to increase the power of the State, finally succumbs to the effects of its own work.The Germans, to secure their independence, chose chiefs;and soon they were oppressed by their kings and noblemen.The monarchs surrounded themselves with volunteers, in order to control the freemen; and they found themselves dependent upon their proud vassals.The _missi dominici_ were sent into the provinces to maintain the power of the emperors, and to protect the people from the oppressions of the noblemen; and not only did they usurp the imperial power to a great extent, but they dealt more severely with the inhabitants.The freemen became vassals, in order to get rid of military service and court duty; and they were immediately involved in all the personal quarrels of their seigniors, and compelled to do jury duty in their courts....
The kings protected the cities and the communes, in the hope of freeing them from the yoke of the grand vassals, and of rendering their own power more absolute; and those same communes have, in several European countries, procured the establishment of a constitutional power, are now holding royalty in check, and are giving rise to a universal desire for political reform."--Meyer:
Judicial Institutions of Europe.
In recapitulation.
