صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

the word toleration itself seemed to him tyrannical. This was exactly what Madison had said in the Virginia Convention. Diversity of opinions, Mirabeau continued, results from a diversity of minds, and cannot be prevented. Against those who spoke of a dominant cult, he said the word dominant was tyrannical and ought to be banished from legislation. Nothing should dominate except justice. No one should do that which might harm another.1 Rabaut de Saint Étienne made an eloquent plea for full religious toleration. He said that one-third of his constituents were Protestants, who enjoyed but imperfect toleration. He attacked those who held that liberty of opinion should be granted, provided the public order were not disturbed by the manifestation of these opinions. He declared this view extremely dangerous. He proposed "that each citizen be free in his opinions, that he have the right to profess his cult freely, and ought not be inquieted for his religion." He said that liberty ought to belong to all Frenchmen equally and in the same manner. Liberty of thought and opinion he held to be the most sacred of rights. It escapes the rule of men, he said, and takes refuge in conscience as a sanctuary whither no mortal has a right to penetrate. It is the only right which men have not put under the laws of the common association: to constrain this right is an injustice, to attack it a sacrilege. He demanded for all non-Catholics equal liberty and equality of rights with the Catholics. He pointed to the "generous" Americans who had put universal religious liberty at the head of their civil code; to the Pennsylvanians who had declared that all who adored a Supreme Being, in what manner soever, should enjoy 1 Arch. Parl., VIII. pp. 472, 477.

all the rights of citizens. The article as definitely declared, contained the restriction against which Rabaut had spoken.' It reads thus:

X. No man ought to be molested for his opinions, not even on account of his religious opinions, provided their manifestation does not disturb the public order established by the law."

XI. The unrestrained communication of thoughts and opinions being one of the most precious rights of man, every citizen may speak, write, and publish freely, but is responsible for the abuse of this liberty, in cases determined by the law.3

XII. A public force being necessary to give security to the Rights of Man and of the citizen, that force is instituted for the advantage of all, and not for the particular benefit of those to whom it is entrusted.*

XIII. A common contribution being necessary for the support of the public force, and for defraying the other expenses of administration, such a contribution ought to be apportioned equally among all the citizens according to their abilities."

XIV. Every citizen has a right, either by himself or through his representative, to a free voice to determine the necessity of the public contributions, to consent to them freely, follow their employment, and determine their amount, mode of assessment, collection and duration.®

XV. The community has the right to demand of all its agents an account of their conduct."

1 Arch. Parl., VIII. pp. 478-80.

2 Ibid., p. 480; Maryland, XXXIII, VIII.

3 Arch. Parl., VIII. p. 483; Vermont, XIV.; Maryland, VIII. 'Maryland, XXV.

5 Arch. Parl., VIII. p. 484; Vermont, IX.; Maryland, XIII. North Carolina, XVI.

7 Vermont, V.; Arch. Parl., VIII. p. 487.

Lameth said that without a separation of the powers of government there would be despotism. Target shared this view. The principle was thus expressed:

XVI. Every community in which the possession of rights is not assured nor the separation of powers determined, lacks a constitution.1

XVII. The right of property being inviolable and sacred, no one can be deprived of the same, unless the public necessity, legally determined, makes this unavoidable, and then a just indemnity must previously be paid.2

1 1 North Carolina, IV

"Vermont Declaration, II.

CHAPTER XII

THE EFFECTS OF THE DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF MAN

THERE is a tendency on the part of some, notably English, writers, to ridicule all political theorizing. Scientific and historical, rather than philosophical studies, have most attraction for the English mind. Thinkers of that nation are inclined to regard it as a fruitless task to grapple with philosophical questions. It is not accidental that Bacon, the man who did perhaps more than any other person in developing the spirit of inductive research to which modern science owes her wonderful triumphs, was an Englishman. To collect facts, rather than build up systems, is characteristic of English intellectual activity. And in accordance with this tendency political theories have been utterly discarded in the English system of government; indeed it is doubtful whether the word system can be legitimately used in speaking of the English constitution, for this constitution is not the product of logical construction, as French constitutions have invariably been, but consists rather of devices dictated by the necessities of the moment. The British government has never recognized those ideas which form the political creed of the American and French Revolutions. Although England has since the earliest days of her history been the example of a free country to the

rest of the world, the doctrine of the sovereignty of the people is not recognized. Although almost every adult male can in England acquire the right of suffrage if he desires, full manhood suffrage has not been proclaimed, but the idea of property, rather than that of equality, is still adhered to. The existence of the peerage, which still possesses great social and political privileges, further disagrees with the doctrines of equality and popular sovereignty. Neither is there any recognition of the rights of the individual as a man, although nowhere, with the possible exception of America, is the importance of personal liberty more esteemed. Though written safeguards after the American fashion are lacking, the force of custom is so strong that the rights of the citizen are nowhere more secure.

While these considerations apply to England they do not apply to other nations, especially not to the American and the French nations, among whom ideas of this sort have been a force in influencing historical development, whose importance can hardly be exaggerated. It is impossible to comprehend the French Revolution without understanding the effects of the so-called "Principles of 1789." It may be said that these ideas form the essence of that movement. De Tocqueville, whose acute and luminous observations have so greatly broadened our views regarding the Revolution and its antecedents, distinguishes between the accidental and transitory features of this period on the one hand, and its essential and permanent characteristics on the other. The antagonism to the Church and hostility against religion he regards as subordinate, while the substance of the Revolution, the most fundamental, the most durable, the truest portion of its work, seems to him to be "the doctrines

« السابقةمتابعة »