The Evolution of Modern Liberty

THE

EVOLUTION OF MODERN LIBERTY

INTRODUCTION

ONE of the most characteristic features of modern systems of government is the importance attached to individual liberty.

It is a fascinating as well as an important undertaking to trace the gradual evolution of modern liberty.

In the despotisms of the Orient personal liberty was entirely unknown, the life, actions, and property of the individual being completely at the mercy of the ruler.

The Greeks were familiar with the idea of liberty, but they confounded liberty with popular sovereignty. They possessed political liberty, but lacked personal freedom in the modern sense. In the Greek city-republics the citizens (excluding of course the slaves, who had no legal rights of any sort) made the laws, decided upon peace or war, elected magistrates, served as judges, and performed the duties resting upon them as partakers of the sovereignty of the State. But there was no sphere of life to which the interference of the government might not be extended. The despotism of the State prevented the growth of private rights. The Greek was primarily a citizen. He existed for the

State, not the State for him. The family life, the religion, the property, the time, yes, all actions of the individual, were under the control of the State. The Greek State ostracized Aristides and put Socrates to death.

To the Roman jurists we owe the distinction between public and private rights. "Public Right," they said, serves the Roman State, Private Right, the interests of individuals." 1

But among the Romans as among the Greeks we notice the same despotism of the State, the same confusion of sovereignty with liberty, which left the individual at the mercy of the State. The Roman citizen could not choose his own religion, as the persecution of the Christians shows. His speech, dress, manners, and actions were regulated by the censors.2

The feudal system of the Middle Ages obliterated the distinction between public and private rights by associating the possession of property with the exercise of sovereignty. Government was regarded, not as a public trust, but as private property. The possession of land carried with it jurisdiction over those dwelling upon the land. Each baron was lord over his domain. There were now only The State no longer existed. rights and duties between lord and vassal, which were based upon contract and were founded upon personal, not political, relations.

In modern times the distinction between private and public rights has again been emphasized. The results

1 Justinian, Institutes, I. 1, 4.

? See Laurent, Études sur l'histoire de l'humanité, t. III (Rome), pp. 265 et seq.; Laboulaye, L'État et ses limites, rp. 7-17; Benjamin Constant, De la Liberté des anciens comparée a celle des modernes (Cours de politique constit., t. II).

E this separation have been beneficial to both. While ublic rights and duties have become more majestic nd authoritative on the one hand, private rights and uties on the other have become more sharply defined, nd have been more widely extended and more effecively secured.

It is of great importance that the citizens of any State have a wide degree of individual liberty and that hey be secure against an infringement of their liberties, not only on the part of other individuals, but also of the government. The degree of liberty and security a people enjoy will profoundly influence their progress. While degradation has been the rule in despotisms, the strongest and most progressive States have been those in which the sphere of individual liberty was large. The progress of the State is the progress of the individuals who are its members. The State lives in its citizens. Paternalism and arbitrary infringement of private rights weaken the State, because they paralyze the initiative and self-reliance of the individual. There is no more instructive example of this truth than the collapse of the Prussian State in 1806-1807.

The desire of personal freedom which is so characteristic of modern times is the product of two factors mainly; namely, of Christianity and of the nature of the modern, as distinguished from the ancient, State. While the religions of the ancient world were State religions, Christianity is the world religion. It appeals to the individual as a man, not as the member of a particular State or people. The Christian religion has no necessary relation to the State. The God of the Christian is no national deity. From the beginning the Christian religion spread to all parts of the world and found adherents among all peoples. Furthermore, Chris

tianity enjoins that God must be obeyed rather than man. This implies that in case the State should command what is contrary to the law of God, the individual must resist. We thus have the individual rising up against the State; in exercising his religion he feels himself primarily a man, not a citizen. Here a sphere exists within which interference from any external source whatever is not tolerated. History shows in many examples how the attempt to control the consciences of men brought them into conflict with governments and made them conscious of the fact that they were, first of all, men, not citizens.

Then, also, the relation of the individual to the government is necessarily entirely different in the modern State which comprises a large territory, often with many millions of inhabitants-from what it was in the ancient city-state. In the latter a greater unity was possible and consequently the control of the community over the individual was greater. The immediate control of the State over its citizens is likely to diminish as the extent of territory increases. Since it is impossible in a large State that the people exercise their sovereign power directly in a popular assembly, as they did in the city-state of antiquity, the powers of government must be delegated to one or a few persons who represent the State. This makes the distinction between the government and the people more evident. It is easier for the citizen of a very large State, especially of a monarchy, to become aware of his individuality and set himself over against the State, than was the case in the ancient city-state where each citizen had a share in the government, and where the distinction between individual and State was less manifest.

England led the way for all other countries of mod

« السابقة متابعة »

كتب