Anon., Considerations on the situation in Europe

PREFACE.[1]

I shall sometimes speak of arbitrary laws, of despotic kings, of enslaved nations, of barbarous institutions. I warn the reader that [2] I do not intend to describe our laws, or our king, or our institutions in this way.

Our laws are the work of the three legislative powers. Our king has had the generosity to give us a royal ordinance that serves us as a constitution, which he has promised to observe, and which guarantees our liberty. If we were to lose it, it would be only through the fault of the Chamber of Peers and that of the Deputies of the departments. They have the power to propose laws, to amend them, to reject them. If these laws were to take from us the concessions the king has granted, it would be necessary for the Peers, the foremost body of the State, to lower themselves from their rank; it would be necessary for the members of the Chamber of Deputies to allow themselves to be corrupted by the court and by the ministers, without fearing the loss of public esteem and the indignation of their fellow citizens.

I am far from thinking this will come to pass; but what seems evident to me is that the government moves in one direction and public opinion in another. Let us take note that the authority of government has [3] no other force than the general will; that the number of particular wills contrary to its authority are so many forces which lessen this; that when wills are divided, the State is threatened with turmoil. Our revolution has so far shown much resemblance to the English revolution. We have had a Cromwell, let us avoid having a King James. If unity was ever necessary, it is more so now than ever, in this moment when Europe, discussing its interests, may become divided: if France must choose a side, let us be united in embracing the same one.

I want here to explore the cause of the evils that trouble some states of Europe; I will try to discover the remedy and to show this to those who can put it into practiuce. The subject I will treat seems to me to concern all men, kings as much as peoples. The progress of the human spirit, which nature, irresistible in its advance, has brought forth despite all obstacles, the fatal experience of the past, and the fears inspired by the future, requires changes in the laws and in governments. Public opinion, which governs the [4] world, has long been preparing them for this. If kings were as enlightened as the educated men of their century, they would avoid upheavals and would themselves direct the civilization of their peoples. They ought to do so out of zeal for their own preservation and interest, even if they were not stirred to do it out of love of humanity and of duty; but by a disastrous destiny, they remain far behind the enlightenment of their age. Born to the throne, they have had little contact with the rest of men; their education has given them only false ideas suggested by flatterers or by artisans of despotism: truth cannot reach them; and if a revolution occurs, on the eve of the destruction of their power, they will have read in the newspapers flattering praises, and speeches solicited or commanded by their ministers; they will have heard, around their palace, the applause of a few paid cliques; they will have seen prostrated at their feet the base courtiers who, in a few hours, are to abandon them in search of a new idol.

[5]

If some ministers or slaves with titles read these pages, they will judge me too bold for having dared to treat a subject which, they say, is entirely foreign to one who ought to remain in the lowly realm of obedience, and not presume to judge the institutions and the actions of authority: but am I not a man? have I not suffered from the errors of our governments and the vices of our institutions? shall I not again be swept up in the misfortunes that threaten us? I am taught by the experience of the past, and I fear the future; I see it arriving under a dark veil; I will reveal it to my fellows, to my companions in misfortune; I would like to persuade kings and ministers to avert the storm; that is why I write.

§ I. Causes of the wars that have devastated the peoples of Europe.

In reading history one finds on every page descriptions of wars and [6] battles. Almost all the men whose memory has come down to us are conquerors who have ravaged the earth and massacred their fellow men. For every Confucius, every Minos, every Solon, one finds a hundred monsters with the title of hero, who have sacked cities, ravaged countrysides, and sown terror and death far and wide. Are men then destined to battle one another eternally? Can nations never live in peace; and is this species of animal that dares to call itself exclusively rational, the only one that slaughters its own kind on earth, in spite of the reason it always invokes to assert its superiority?

The fierce lion prowls like a despot over the burning sands of Africa; he tears apart, to satisfy his needs, animals of a different species, but he spares the lion, his own kind; the tiger does not devour the tiger; the eagle, soaring through the air, casts his piercing gaze into the darkest forests, he swoops upon his prey, but he respects the nest and the family of the neighboring eagle. The social man, the man [7] who has been refined by institutions he dares to praise, sometimes as a gift of the divinity, sometimes as the finest which thought has to offer, this man arms himself against man, his fellow; he goes forth to attack him in distant lands, sets fire to his cities, ravages his countryside and reduces him to hopeless poverty. Must this excess of ferocity then be attributed to nature? Has she been more ungrateful toward man than toward other animals? Might not this fury, on the contrary, be the bitter fruit of our institutions and our governments which deprave us and divide us?

I can understand that tribes of savages should wage war to seize the fish of a lake, the beast of a forest: they are placed between war and famine, they must fight or perish. But we—French, English, Germans, Italians, Spaniards, Russians—why do we wage war on each other? Nature has given all of us enough to satisfy our needs in abundance: she has even given us the means of exchange to increase our mutual enjoyments and [8] to establish among us bonds of harmony and mutual attachment; we all love science, the arts; we share with each other our ideas and discoveries; we read and admire the same authors; the same philosophy circulates secretly from Cadiz to Petersburg, from Naples to London; where then do the wars come from that divide us and cause our misfortune?… They come from the ambition of those who govern us, they come from our enslavement. Indignant nature punishes people for having allowed themselves to be brutalized by despotism; she seems to say to them:

"Degenerate and brutalized species, I had endowed you all equally, and you have renounced the equality in which I had placed you; I had given you natural law, you have forgotten it; you abandoned truth to follow error; I had given you justice to govern you, you have driven it out, and you have set despotism upon its throne! You shall be punished for having forsaken the path I had traced out for you. The men you have given yourselves as masters will enslave you; they [9] will strip you of the fruits of your labor and your industry; they will arm you one against the other, and you will slaughter each other for their ambition; they will brutalize you beneath their despotism; they will hold you in contempt; they will leave you nothing but the shameful lot of serving their passions and their fury. They will hurl you unceasingly into fresh misfortunes, until you restore the natural course of civilization which, from its very origin, has taken a false path; until you have placed just laws, founded on your nature, in the place of the arbitrary will of a man who divides you instead of uniting you, who deceives you in order to enslave you, and who finally treats you like herds of animals which he plunders and slaughters at his pleasure."

§ II. New wars are being prepared as disastrous as the previous ones.

We are scarcely out of a bloody war [10] that set Europe aflame, when new clouds are gathering, when new wars are being prepared. They will be as disastrous, as terrible for the people as the last war. The sovereigns, by a fatal experience, have learned to bring to bear all the arms of their subjects. In earlier centuries, they sustained their quarrels with bands of human-faced hounds whom they called soldiers, and who sold themselves for this degrading and shameful trade; but today they will arm all our children. We shall no longer have the sweet hope that they might support us in our old age; their hands will not close our eyes; they will end their days far from us, on battlefields or in pestilential cesspools called hospitals; they will perish from fatigue or cold, and their scattered bodies will remain unburied, exposed in the fields or on the roads; they will be prey for wild beasts.

Formerly, people risked in war only a part of their fortune; when sovereigns could no longer find [11] in their own states the money needed to sustain it, they made peace, or rather a truce which gave their subjects time to amass through their labor and industry new wealth that would one day be torn from them to sustain a new war. The weakness of the armies did not allow for great invasions, the blows were struck at the frontiers; a few strips of country were, it is true, ruthlessly devastated; but defeats and victories made one lose or gain only a few miles of ground.

Today, innumerable armies penetrate deep into the heart of states; to subsist, they plunder everything in their path, leaving behind them vast deserts strewn with corpses, debris, and ashes. Women, the aged, and children are scattered, and have for their refuge only the caves of the forests; and when, after the passage of the devastating torrent, they emerge from their retreat to return to their homes, they find only smoking ruins, air made pestilent by the exhalation of the filth [12] left behind by the vast armies.

People of Europe!These are the misfortunes that threaten you, this is the terrifying prospect that presents itself before you. I seek in vain some glimmer of hope; the future seems to me dark and grim. The only remedy for these evils would be to return civilization to its natural course, to replace the arbitrary yoke of princes with that of the laws; only free people can live in peace. When all people have adopted representative government, and when they have a larger share in shaping their legislation, only then will nations be capable of civilization, only then will they be able to bind themselves together by the code of the law of nations, and only then will Europe form but one family, a single confederation.

Before uniting nations by just and equal laws, it is necessary that the men who make up the nations obey only just and equal laws, founded on nature and on the true aim of civilization. So long as they are subject [13] to arbitrary laws, what hope is there that sovereigns will wish to submit to the code of the law of nations! Will they want to recognize among themselves the equality they refuse to admit among their subjects? Will the strong wish to be just toward the weak? Will they renounce their ambitious projects? Will they change their nature at last? No, let us not give in to this hope. It is not the people who want war, it is the kings. And what does it matter to them whether their masters are the victors or the vanquished—are they any less miserable? Does a province added to the kingdom bring them any reduction in taxes? Are glory, triumphs, and monuments, meant to flatter the pride of the subjects, or that of the princes? The latter triumph when the others have purchased victory at the price of their fortune and their blood; they increase their luxury and their expenses, while the burdened people crawl about in poverty.

[14]

§ III. Napoleon could have established the confederation of Europe.

A philosopher-warrior who had held in his hands the power of Napoleon would have established the civilization of Europe on its true foundations. He would have introduced social institutions and beneficent laws wherever he carried his devastating arms; instead of imposing new chains on the peoples, he would have given them liberty. As the first magistrate of the French nation, he would not have usurped absolute power; he would on the contrary have employed his power to make her free. Once he had arrived at the Niemen river, this philosopher-warrior would have proclaimed the liberty of Europe and would have given it the code of the law of nations; he would have assigned to nations the boundaries that nature, customs, and their interests seem to have mapped out; he would not have treated them as miserable herds to be handed over to shepherds to be sheared and slaughtered. [15] I seem to hear this benefactor of the human race giving the following speech to the people and to the kings:

"People and kings of Europe, you have seen me before this day, arms in hand, spreading death and terror everywhere; you have believed that I was a conqueror greedy for power and vain glory; you have compared me to those who, before me, ravaged the earth and left behind only a hated name; but you have misjudged me. I have wished to acquire, by the force of arms, the power to command Europe—not to enslave it, but to make it free. I waged war upon you to establish a lasting system of peace. I formed the vast and useful project of laying the foundations of Europe’s civilization upon its true base. The art of printing has enlightened the people, they now need different legislation; commerce has drawn them closer together; they must be united by the code of the law of nations: let justice govern nations as it does individuals; let there be no more war among us; let the peoples have a great share in [16] their legislation, and they will willingly submit to the laws given to them by their representatives: they will be content and tranquil; the kings will be more firmly seated on their thrones; they will have the power to do good and not the power to do harm. Each people must have the choice of its political association, of its laws, of its government. Nature seems to have distributed rivers and seas so that nations might share equally in the advantages of maritime commerce. If anyone dares to dispute our rights, let him be declared the enemy of Europe."

Such conduct would have aroused the admiration of all the people, and the philosopher-warrior would have been proclaimed the benefactor of Europe. But events turned out quite differently. Napoleon, abusing his power, brought upon himself the hatred of all the nations he oppressed; he was defeated, and his power dissolved like a shadow.

[17]

§ IV. The fall of Napoleon’s empire must give rise to new wars.

The collapse of Napoleon’s empire must give birth to new discord. The borders of the old states had disappeared; the interests of many people had become intertwined. Each now wants to seize what he regards as his former domains: the strongest wish to usurp the weakest; kings who were driven out or dethroned claim their old thrones, which they call the inheritance of their fathers; the new sovereigns who had broken with Napoleon wish to maintain their power. The English want to possess a vast state on the continent; they want to retain exclusively the sovereignty of the seas and the advantages of commerce; they wage war against their American brothers because the latter want to enjoy the rights that nature seems to have granted to all people. In such a state of affairs, can peace be hoped for? Will the [18] great continental powers concede to England the dominion of the seas and exclusive right to commerce? But in that case, English power will be no less burdensome and no less fatal to them than was that of Napoleon. Can one flatter oneself that England will renounce its claims? But how could it maintain its credit and pay the interest on its enormous debt?

Besides, has it ever been seen that a power renounced its advantages when it was safe from any harm? If war breaks out between England and the sovereigns of the continent, the former will have all Italy on her side. The king of Naples can only maintain himself by allying with her. Genoa is in her hands; Corfu is occupied by an English garrison. The people of Lombardy, discontented, will revolt when she pleases. In that part of Europe, an army of a hundred thousand men will fight for her cause. She can easily bring Sweden and Denmark to side with her interests. An army ready for action is gathered in Holland and in the Netherlands. Turkey cannot [19] maintain her position in Europe except with her alliance; the Turks will again send arms to her side. In Spain, she will support the party of the Cortes and will organize civil war. In France…! Kings of Europe, you feared the power of Napoleon, you overthrew him; but your situation has not become better: you will have only changed your master. Your union alone could save you; but it is impossible; opinion is too divided and interests are too divergent. Only free people can form a confederation. England will have the means to corrupt the ministers of sovereigns; she will divide their interests; will arm them against one another; we will fight on the continent; we will grow poor, while they remain tranquil on their island and grow rich. The people will fall into despair; they will see no remedy to their ills but revolt; they will be driven toward liberty by the excess of their misery, and they will obtain through the horrors of a revolution what their sovereigns should have [20] granted them out of prudence and even out of self-interest. It is therefore only from the excess of their misery and their despair that people may expect to gain their social regeneration and peace. O wretched condition of the human species! must good, then, be born only out of the excess of evil?

§ V. Only England can undertake to unite Europe in a confederation.

England, if she were rightly inspired and if she understood her true interests, would place herself at the head of a European confederation; she would unite sincerely with France, which has just adopted some of her institutions; with the United States of America, who are as free as she is and are her children; with Holland, the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Italy, and with all the people of Europe who wish to be free and to submit to the laws of the [21] confederation. She ought to renounce her exclusive selfishness, and consent to share with all the united people the benefits of commerce and of colonies. England would thereby avoid the misfortunes that the nations of the continent could one day bring down upon her, driven by her provocations, her injustices, and her dreadful policy, which cannot fail over time to isolate her and separate her entirely from the rest of Europe. But can one hope that she will suddenly change her conduct? Still, let her carefully weigh up her interests; and, casting her eyes over what has just taken place, let her examine the fate Napoleon met for having attempted to provoke and oppress Europe; and let her tremble for her own future if she does not learn to be just and generous. If, on the contrary, she renounces the insane plan of dominating the seas, of seizing all branches of commerce and of fanning the flames of war in Europe out of mere self-interest, if she is willing to be just and generous, she deserves the honor and the glory of placing herself at the head of a confederated and free people; she is the richest, the [22] most powerful, the most industrious; she extends her relations far and wide: it is she who created true liberty in Europe, who perfected the representative system and worked out how the various powers of government should act. She has been free for a century; whereas the French are still children who crawl between liberty and despotism. This truth is hard for the nation to accept; but it is too evident to be concealed.

§ VI. Plans of the popes and Jesuits, of Henry IV, Louis XIV, and Napoleon.

The popes and Jesuits once dared to undertake to unite the nations by the bond of religion, and to govern the world by theocracy: they controlled the thinking of Christian nations, and this thinking controlled the kings. But this bond, founded on superstition, could not endure longer than superstition itself. Luther [23] broke it, and the progress of enlightenment has overthrown all of its supports. So too must fall all the institutions that are not founded on the real utility of the people. Under such a government, men would have lived in peace like flocks of sheep which shepherds lead quietly to pasture, but shear and slaughter at their pleasure. The people, brutalized by ignorance and superstition, would have dragged on their existence in misery amid phantoms and terrors, without activity, without industry, hoping for happiness only in the life to come. Moreover, such a system could apply only to the people of the Roman religion, but civilization must extend over the whole globe.

Henry IV had formed the plan of uniting Europe; but death took him before he could attempt to carry it out. He would not have succeeded, because a confederation of kings is impossible. It can only take place among free people who have a representative government, and who can use this as a means to establish outside themselves a center of general [24] representative government, which, by bringing together their individual views, would itself have only a general perspective.

After this good king, two ambitious men appeared who wished to found a universal monarchy: one was Louis XIV, the other was Napoleon. The first paid for his extravagance with the humiliation of the end of his reign: he left France exhausted, and died without being mourned. We know what fate befell Napoleon. The misfortunes he brought upon France will be felt for a long time to come.

§ VII. Probable outcomes of the Congress of Vienna.

All the powers of Europe are at this moment discussing their respective interests: what will be the outcome of their discussions? Will they be able to come to an understanding and reach an agreement? Each will undoubtedly discuss its particular interests, and none will present any general views. Russia, Austria, and Prussia will enlarge themselves, each [25] as it suits them; England will obtain on the continent what she desires for herself and for Holland, which is, properly speaking, only an English province. The fate of France is decided. Spain has nothing to ask. The interests of the smaller powers may provoke some discussion; they will eventually be settled. But will not the continental powers wish to obtain freedom of trade and of the seas, and will this not become a bone of contention between England and the continental powers?

If supremacy of the seas is granted to England, and consequently the commerce of the world, that island, peopled with free men, will be the sovereign of the globe, and all other nations will be its slaves and the tools of its fortune. She will divide them at her pleasure, arm one against the other, according to her interests, to weaken and dominate them.

If England, unwilling to abandon any of her maritime claims, brings war upon herself, she will be attacked in her [26] continental possessions. To defend herself, she will form alliances; but what allies could she have? She will have Italy, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Hanover, the Netherlands, and Turkey. She could have three great armies on the continent; she has nothing to fear from France or Spain; she could even leave to these two powers only the choice between joining her alliance or facing civil war. I shall not attempt to reveal what means she might employ; they are well enough known that I may refrain from mentioning them.

§ VIII. What ought to be the policy of France and Spain.

If war should break out between England and the powers of the North, the interest of France and Spain is to ally themselves with England; but this alliance can be lasting and advantageous to these two nations only if it is founded on a [27] confederation based on justice, equality, moderation, and the sharing of the benefits of commerce and colonies. However, since a confederation can exist only among free people, Spain must adopt a constitution akin to the English constitution. France already has a nearly similar constitution. It is only a matter for her to follow it and maintain it. By taking this course, France would rise again from her prostration; she would recover her borders from the Rhine to the frontiers of the Netherlands, the seeds of dissension would gradually be destroyed, we would turn our efforts to commerce and colonial establishments. The partisans of liberty would no longer fear the encroachments of absolute authority, and we would see a vast horizon open before us in which to give free rein to national activity. Philosophy and freedom of the press would no longer be the terror of the government; the former would guide the progress of civilization, which must gradually extend over the globe; the latter, by giving free scope to all [28] ideas, would enlighten the government and make it aware of public opinion, which legislation must always closely follow.

§ IX. On the organization of a confederation of free peoples.

Only free people can unite in a confederation: and they must also have analogous constitutions so that they may proceed, in a uniform manner, to the creation of a central government that will hold them together. I shall not dwell on the form to be given to this government nor on the mechanism of its constitution; I will confine myself to saying that it must be representative, and of the same nature as the particular governments of each confederated state. It must possess the power of all the states, and have none exclusively of its own. It must be constructed in such a way that it can have no views other than the general interest of the confederation. The individual states must [29] possess only the force necessary to maintain their internal order. The internal and administrative laws of each state must be regulated by the particular governments. General affairs must be regulated by the general government. It ought to be, in several respects, similar to the government of the United States of America.

§ X. What should be the goal of this confederation?

The goal of the confederation must be union, peace, the happiness, and prosperity of all the confederated states; for these are the motives that are the reason for its formation. But the general government must have still other aims, such as the commerce of the world, the civilization of the globe, and the colonies.

The commerce of the world alone can sustain activity, bring about wealth, make the arts flourish, extend civilization by establishing relations with all people. Colonies can populate the parts of the [30] globe that are still deserted. They are necessary to absorb the surplus population that inevitably results from the liberty of people; for look at England—during nearly a century in which this island has enjoyed liberty, its population has grown by several millions, despite the continual wars it has sustained, despite the losses at sea. She has peopled the United States of America, Canada, several points on the coasts of Africa, the coasts of India, from the mouths of the Indus to Bengal. She has several colonies in America and establishments on the coasts of Africa and Europe.

War must not be the profession of united free people; they must wage it only for their defense.

The confederation ought to concern itself with great works of general utility, establish major lines of communication, open canals, cut through isthmuses, plant colonies among barbarous peoples, in order to hasten civilization and extend the relations of commerce: such should be the great purpose of a confederation of free people.

[31]

§ XI. Advantages of liberty.

In reading history, one finds that all free people have prospered and that despotic governments have depopulated the earth. England, free for a century, has developed her wealth and power to the highest degree. A population of thirteen million people, occupying only a point on the globe, is master of the world’s commerce and dictates laws to Europe. America has been free for thirty years; and in that interval, its population has more than tripled. She is rich and powerful and plays a great role among the nations. Holland, when free, was once able to struggle against all the forces of Spain, and against Louis XIV, whom she humbled. Enslaved peoples, admire the power of liberty, and say to your masters: Why are we not free? We would be rich and happy!

But whence comes it that liberty has such influence on the prosperity and power of [32] states? It is because people multiply only when they are rich and happy; and they become so only when their property and individual liberty is protected by laws and shielded from the whims of arbitrary power.

Free people are powerful, because they have a great share in government; because laws are supposed to be the expression of the general will; because the authority of government, being supported by the opinion of all, can employ the force of all.

In an absolute monarchy, legislation has no other force than that inspired by fear. The people may be submissive, but they are without energy, without patriotism. They are forbidden to concern themselves with the prosperity of the State: to obey and keep silent is the duty prescribed to them. If enlightenment and knowledge penetrate among the people, and they come to perceive the vices of the government, then discontent arises, along with the spirit of revolt and sedition; the State is divided; the government is obliged to employ one part of the public power [33] to restrain the other; it no longer has the strength for its external defense. If it is attacked, it is defeated.

It is with these reasons that one can explain why the free people of Greece were once able to resist the attacks of the kings of Persia, why Holland could resist the forces of Spain, Switzerland those of Austria; why, at the beginning of the Revolution, France was able to resist all the powers of Europe; why Napoleon was able to make such great conquests, and why he fell so swiftly when he was no longer supported by public opinion in France and the general will. If kings truly studied history, they would prefer the rule of law to the rule of absolute authority.

§ XII. A confederation of kings would be horrendous. It is impossible.

There has been talk of a confederation of the princes of the continent, whose aim would be the mutual guarantee [34] of their states against any foreign attack, and of their thrones against sedition and revolution by the people. But what force would ensure the carrying out of the regulations of this confederation? Would the kings establish a king above themselves to be its chief? But this king would doubtless be the most powerful among them; he would always have his particular interest in view, and he would soon be master of the others. Moreover, such a monstrosity would prepare their ruin; the people would see in it nothing but a coalition against themselves. Such a project is too revolting and too much disapproved by the opinion of the age. Goodness! If the king of France were to call the French rebels because they demanded the maintenance of the constitution, Cossacks would come, lance in hand, to police Paris and all of France! Slaves would come to fasten our chains! And if the Russian peasants should one day wish to become men, a French army would go to slaughter them at home! If the janissaries struck off the head of the Grand Seignior, a crusade of all Europe would go to avenge this [35] assassination! The Most Christian King would commit himself to upholding the religion of Luther in Prussia! If a papal bull were rejected in France by public opinion, against the will of the king, a prince of Prussia would come to publish it at the head of an army of Lutherans! An Ottoman army would come to support the Inquisition in Spain!

I will say no more to prove the absurdity of such an association; moreover, according to such a hypothesis, sovereigns would no more faithfully observe their treaties than they have done until now.

§ XIII. How should France conduct itself if England refuses to consent to the establishment of the confederation.

Nevertheless, whatever the events may be, should France ally with England if she is not admitted to a share of commerce and of the colonies? It is not by ordinary treaties that she can have such a guarantee; it is only through the establishment of a [36] confederation of free people. Without that, England, following her deceitful policy, could use the arms of France against the other powers of the continent, and refuse to keep her promises if her interest advised otherwise; for what means would there be to constrain her? She is isolated, beyond reach; she has naval forces superior to those of the entire world. The weak can have no guarantee against the strong when not supported by an intermediate power charged with upholding justice.

But if England, unwilling to consent to the establishment of the confederation, should find herself at war on the continent, what course should France then adopt?

She must act with the utmost prudence toward the belligerent parties, without taking part in their quarrels, work to restore her finances, supply her arsenals, fortify her strongholds, establish a system of conscription favorable to the formation of a national army, prepare imposing forces, and await the favorable opportunity to enter [37] the field. But what matters most to her is to rally all parties and form some public mindedness.

But why are we divided, why do we not have any public mindedness? The ministers must know it better than we do. One would have had to have emigrated in order to remain true to one's principles (avoir suivi la ligne droite) ; that is to say, that the émigrés alone did their duty, and that in the rest of the nation there are only seditious elements. The freedom of the press brought to light important truths: censorship was established; and to prove that it conforms to the spirit of the reform ordinance, we are told that to prevent and to repress are synonyms. Could contempt and insult have been pushed so far? Napoleon’s government was detested because of its despotism; but what he did through violence has been done, since his fall, through cunning. It would take too long to report here all the acts of the ministry that have outraged public opinion; they are so numerous that one would have to be blind not to perceive that we are being led back to absolute monarchy, and that the Revolution is being put on trial—that is to say, [38] the mass of the nation that carried it out; for it is not, as they would have us believe, the work of a handful of rebellious men. Could a few agitators have defeated all of Europe armed against the liberty of France? Must we believe that all the French nobility fled shamefully before a few seditious men, abandoning the king; and that they went beyond the Rhine to join the Prussians and the Germans in order to return with them to subjugate a handful of rebels?

But I have said enough. To put an end to the evil, we must destroy its cause. Let the ministers seek it out, let them consult public opinion, and let them follow it; then the harm will soon be repaired; and the French, united, will form but one family, of which the king will be loved like a good father who treats all his children well, without distinction; for marked preferences divide the state as they divide families.

France, reunited under the Bourbons and guided by correct policy—that which tends to bring peoples together and make them happy—could still aspire one day to the [39] immortal glory of placing herself at the head of the European confederation, which alone can maintain peace and prepare the civilization of the whole globe.

§ XIV. Conclusion.

I have shown the cause of the wars that have devastated Europe for so many centuries; I have demonstrated that it lies in the form of our governments and in the absolute authority of kings; that it arises from the state of nature in which the people still remain, who have no rule of justice among them, and whose disputes are settled by violence and force.

This state can only change through the reform of governments and through a great plan of civilization that unites nations; and only a European confederation can achieve this goal. This marvellous and beneficent institution, which would maintain happiness and peace among [40] people, and which would swiftly spread civilization across the entire globe, must meet the opposition of all sovereigns. How can one hope that their arbitrary and prideful will should submit to the yoke of justice and of legislation?

If Napoleon, child of the French Revolution, had not been carried away by his ambition, if he had known his true interests, if he had been humane, he would have regenerated Europe and subjected the nations to the great civilization that they must one day reach, but which probably will be born only from the misery and despair of the people.

One scarcely dares to hope that England, which alone is capable of carrying out this great work, will wish to renounce her selfishness, her false policy, and the advantage conferred upon her, in a sense, by her position, enabling her to be unjust with impunity, in order to share with other peoples that which one cannot hope to wrest from her. Let us then prepare for new wars; let us not be frightened by the disastrous events that the future has in store for us, since it is certain that there is [41] no remedy except in the excess of misery and despair.

Let the writers of the age apply themselves to spreading among public opinion the ideas that must one day unite the people of Europe, and let them show them the harbor where they will be safe when a favorable wind permits them to seek refuge there.

Endnotes

[1] An article sent to us.