There seems to be in France a constant confusion of equality and democracy on the one hand, and of democracy and liberty on the other; now, although equality largely enters as an element in all liberty, and no liberty can be imagined without a democratic element, equality and democracy of themselves are far from constituting liberty. They may be the worst of .despotisms: the one by annihilating individuality, as the communist strives to do; the other —if it means democratic absolutism-by being real sweeping power itself-not power lent, as that of the monarch always must be-power without personal responsibility. It acts; but where is the actor, who is responsible, who can be made responsible, who will judge?

It is with reference to this rule, and this mistaken view of liberty, that one of their wisest, best, and most liberty-loving men, Mr. Royer Collard, has said: "It is nothing but a sovereignty of brute force, and a most absolute form of absolute power. Before this sovereignty, without rule, without limit, without duty and without conscience, there is neither constitution nor law, neither good nor evil, nor past nor future. The will of to-day annuls that of yesterday, without engaging that of to-morrow. The pretensions of the most capricious and most extravagant tyranny do not go so far, because they are not in the same degree disengaged from all responsibility." Where any one, or any two, or any three, or any thousand, or any million can do what they have the power to do, there is no liberty. Arbitrary power

4 Royer Collard's Opinion of October 4, 1831.

does not become less arbitrary because it is the united power of many.

Napoleon said: "The French love equality; they care little for liberty." Napoleon certainly mistook the French, and mankind in general, very seriously in some points, as all men of his kind do; there are some entire instincts wanting in them; but we fear that he was right in this saying with reference to a large part of the French. Present events seem to prove it.

This equality is again very generally mistaken for uniformity, so that it would naturally lead of itself to centralization, even if the French had not contracted a real passion for centralization ever since the reigns of Richelieu and Louis the Fourteenth. It has increased with almost every change of government. It is the love of power carried into every detail, and therefore the opposite of what we call self-government; it is the exceeding partiality of the French for logical neatness and consistency of

5 Words spoken to lord Ebrington in his exile on the island of Elba.

6 I have given some remarkable instances of interference on the part of modern absolute governments, in the Political Ethics. I shall add the following recent instance: I am sure that no one accustomed to Anglican self-government imagines such details as trivial, however well he may be acquainted with the fact in general, that government in those countries tries to guide, direct, manage, initiate and complete everything that seems of any importance to it. Some years ago a German king ironically called, in a throne speech, constitutions Paper Providences. The expression was every way most unfortunate. It seems to me that it is these very governments of centralized mandarinism that play at providence, in which

form, strikingly manifested in the fact that the word logical is now universally used in French for consistency of action or natural sequence of changes—it is this mathematical enthusiasm, if the expression be permitted, applied to the vast field of political practice.

It seems that we can explain the cry of République democratique et sociale, so often repeated by the most advanced of the democrats during the late government without a king, only on the ground of equality being considered the foundation of all liberty. Indeed it is considered by many a requisite

they closely resemble the communists, as indeed all absolutism contains a strong element of communism.

The following is taken from the Paris Moniteur, the French official paper, or organ of government, in October, 1852. I do not give the entire decree, but the principal articles:

There will be published, under the care of the minister of public instruction, a general collection of the popular poetry of France, either to be found in manuscript in the libraries or transmitted by the successive memories of generations.

The collection of the popular poetry of France will consist of: Religious and warlike songs.

Festive songs and ballads.

Historical recitals, legends, tales, satirical songs.

The committee of language, history and the arts of France connected with the ministry of public instruction is charged with the selection of all pieces sent for inspection, and to determine which are to be received, to regulate them, and give the necessary commentaries.

A medal is to be given to those persons who by their discoveries and researches particularly contribute to enrich the collection, which will be called Récueil des Poésies Populaires.

It is unnecessary to remind the reader that if this undertaking has been dictated by any desire of promoting literature, a political motive has been at least equally strong, according to the old saying: Give me the ballad making, and I will rule the people.

which lies beyond liberty, and the banners of socialists bore the motto Equality and Fraternity, or Equality, Fraternity, Industry, the word Liberty having been altogether dropped from that once worshipped legend: Liberty, Fraternity, Equality. I have never been able to find an explanation of the watchword, Democratic and Social Republic, given by those who used it, but it seems to bear no other interpretation than this: Democratic republic signifies that republic which is founded upon the total political equality of its members, carried to its last degree, and social republic must mean a republic based on equality of social condition. Whether this be possible, or desirable if it were possible, cannot occupy us at present. The frequent use of this term by a very large part of the French nation has been mentioned here as one of the evidences showing the prevailing love of mere equality among the French.

Still, it is not easy to say what the French exactly mean by equality, or what Napoleon meant by it, when, at St. Helena, he said that he had given equality to the French, and that this was all he could give them, but that his son would have given them liberty. How he knew that his son would have done it, we certainly do not know; but how did he give them equality, when it was he who reestablished the ancient orders of nobility? So there are, in spite of all the love of equality, no people who more universally love uniforms and an order with a ribbon, than the French. This inconsistency is a political misfortune. In theory, equality and

democracy, carried to the utmost, are demanded, while the habits, tendencies, and desires of the people have a different bent. There is in this respect, it seems, an intellectual and psychical dualism with antagonistic elements in France, similar to that which we frequently observe in individuals in regard to liberty and despotism."

It is evident how nearly allied this desired equality and uniformity, together with universal but uninstitutional suffrage, and that kind of sovereignty which is in addition confounded with absolute power, are to those political extravagances which strike our eyes in present France.

They are the natural effects of the one or the other, strictly carried out, however inconsistent they may appear with one another. Equality absolutely carried out leads to communism; the idea of undivided sovereignty leads to Mr. Girardin's conception of having no legislature, no division of power-nothing but a succession of popular sultans; the idea of

7 Nothing is more common than men with a decided intellectual bent towards freedom and an equally decided psychical inclination towards absolutism. Their intellect admires the grandeur of liberty, their reason acknowledges the principles of justice; their desires are for free action, and yet their souls resent every opposition. They appear, therefore, often as hypocrites, without being such in reality. There is a dualism within them whose two elements are at war, very similar to that which, without hypocrisy, makes many persons sincerely preach peace and charity abroad, but act at home as domestic tyrants.

History is full of such characters, and we have had an exhibition of it in one of our presidents. Happily our institutional system did not allow a very wide play of such a disposition.