图书图片
PDF
ePub

the acknowledgement of certain ascertained principles of Humanity, forming the ground-work of the social compact, establishing the terms upon which the individual consents to trust his liberties to the will of his fellows, and laying down the bases upon which to build up the duties of individuals to society. What state of society would that be, in which there was no common rule of right, no recognition of any law of Humanity superior to the caprice of the majority of a People? The Constitution is the ground of universal action, as well as the acknowledged bulwark of individual right over which even the greatest possible majority may not step. For society combines for organization, for stronger growth of all, not merely for protection of individual liberties.

M. Rittinghausen, who, unaware of Rousseau and the men of 1793, claims to be the discoverer of the principle,—seems to object to organization of any sort. He would have no projects of law. The only initiative of the minister consists in determining that on such a day meetings will be held for the purpose of deliberating concerning a law on a certain subject. The minister is obliged to summon the People within a prescribed time whenever a certain number of citizens demands it. It is only in matters of external policy that the minister can submit to the People propositions which have not been indicated to him by the number of citizens fixed by law. The law will emanate in an organic manner from the discussions themselves. It is only after the opinions of the People have reached the Minister that a commission will frame them into a simple and clear form of law. Every project of law produced by any commission whatever is of no value, inasmuch as it is not the work of the general mind.

No Council, no preparation of the laws to be considered, no Assembly; an Executive merely to carry out whatever popular wish might happen to obtain a majority of voices, powerless else however grave the emergency; the absence of anything like government or organization, and the whole people so unorganized having to provide for every act of administration: a repetition in fact of what Rousseau describes as one of the causes of the ruin of the old democracies:-this seems to be the ideal of M. Rittinghausen. This is not the theory to which we would invite the adhesion of our fellow-republicans. We want not merely that every one should be a law to himself, doing as he listeth; we want the organization of all by all for the growth and progress of Humanity. We desire with M. Rittinghausen the absolute Sovereignty of the People; but we do not desire that the People should refuse to organize its own government, through an exaggerative reaction against the government of Usurpers. We would have the People Sovereign, not that it should play, however pleasantly, the game of the present Anarchs, but that it should rule its own life, for the better performance of human duty, for the perfection of human nature, and for the service of the Eternal.

I shall be told, says Considerant, that this Sovereignty is impossible. 'I might content myself by replying that I am sorry for it, but that it is a thing historically necessary. And this answer should suffice. Impossibility, indeed, has never prevented anything. Can there be cited an accomplished progress, great or small, which has not, in its time, been declared impossible by the wise-men, that

is to say, the Whigs of the period? The history of the progress of Humanity is only one immense tissue of realized impossibilities.'

A

"The old social formation, that gigantic granite formation of feudalism and the middle ages, is destroyed. What remains of it? Nothing but the ruins. residuum, under the name of the great party of order.

'Thou hast riven and ground to dust the great granitic chains, O Liberty! and the slimy sediment would hope to clog thee.'

MONARCHY OR THE REPUBLIC.

MONARCHY or the Republic: these two principles embrace every form of government. By the Republic we mean the Direct Sovereignty of the People: the whole People making its own laws and governing itself. There is no other Republic: all else is Monarchy of some sort.

The law of human progress, of human life, is the equal freedom of all human beings FOR THE SAKE OF THE WHOLE OF HUMANITY.

Christianity, the doctrine of human equality under God, is the first chapter of the law of human progress. The realization of Christianity is the first step in the accomplishment of God's law.

Tyranny is whatever opposes this law of equal freedom for the sake of all.

Monarchy is the rule of the exception-the tyrannous usurpation of a part, instead of the enthronement of the whole.

It matters not whether there be one absolute Monarch, or a number of Monarchs; whether the Monarchy be assumed by an individual or by any numbers of individuals: the principle is the same in all cases.

The monarchical principle is the right of usurpation, the right of a fraction of Humanity to usurp the sovereignty which belongs only to Humanity as a whole.

What matters how large the fraction is? By merely increasing the number of usurpers, does the usurpation become less ?

If one man (call him a Czar or a Pope; it is of little consequence what) should make himself the sovereign of the world, would any sane man doubt that he would be an usurper, a tyrant ?

This is Monarchy in its nakedness. There is no mistaking the monster here. But it has many disguises, under which it beguiles even thinkers of very great respectability. Suppose one man escapes into the desert, not out of the realms, but out of the reach of the self-called Universal Sovereign: should we deem the Usurper any less an Usurper, on account of that one man's escape?

Or call the one man a million, does that alter the fact of the Usurpation; or does the Usurper cease to be an Usurper, when he rules over only a million of men instead of over the whole world?

The fact of the usurpation remains the same. The Usurper is he who assumes rule

over his fellow man, in violation of the law of human equality, in treasonous contempt of the only Sovereign-Humanity itself.

The absolute sovereign is then in all cases an Usurper, a rebel against Humanity.

In all cases: it is not in any respect a question of how he uses his usurped power. His very sovereignty is his crime.

He is a thief: for he has stolen the rights of his fellows. We need not inquire as to his benevolence.

He is a traitor: for he has rebelled against the law of IIumanity; and so stands accursed, whatever his 'advantages.'

He is a liar: for he calls himself-a part-a fraction of Humanity-the equal, or the superior of the whole.

His very sovereignty is his crime. His usurpation, the sum of all usurpations, is the greatest of all crimes.

But he would make a compromise with the rest of Humanity: so he becomes a constitutional monarch.

That is to say-the Usurper bribes some men to be content with his usurpation. Is it not still an usurpation?

The thief restores a portion of his booty: that is, the constitutional thief. Is not his theft still theft?

The rebel compounds for his treason. Does that make rebellion anything less than treasonous ?

The liar quibbles, persuades few or many to believe him. If the whole world believed his lie, would that alter the nature of falsehood?

Such is constitutional monarchy: a restoration of a portion of the rights of Humanity, a composition for the treason of the royal rebel, a sanctification of the inherent falsehood of monarchy by certain voices of men who can not judge between right and wrong. Monarchy remains an usurpation though the whole world acclaim the constitution in virtue of which it continues to usurp.

But how an usurpation, if the world consents?

Because no man can consent to surrender that which is not his own.

of Humanity is not mine or yours, but belongs to the whole.

The sovereignty

But the whole 'consents.' It is impossible. Even the objection of one man would be sufficient to prevent the act of 'universal abdication.' It is not a question of a majority, but of the whole.

Humanity is the sovereign,-not a majority, but the whole of Humanity.

And were it possible for the whole of Humanity at any given period to surrender the sovereignty into the hands of a monarch, or a number of monarchs, constitutional or absolute, the act would be null and void: for the vote of the whole world can not make wrong right, falsehood truth, robbery honest, or usurpation other than usurpation.

Humanity is the sovereign: not any given generation of human beings, but all the generations of mankind.

Nay, not even one man may abdicate his share in the collective sovereignty: for he holds it, not absolutely in his own right, but as an integral part of Humanity, from which, from whose law and destiny, he can not sunder himself.

He can make himself a slave, the accomplice of the Usurper; but he can give no right to the wrong doer, he can not make the usurpation less by sharing it.

Humanity is the sole sovereign. Monarchy under all its aspects, malignant or benevolent, naked or wrapped, with or without accomplices, is an usurpation, a wrong. The

voices of all time could not absolve it.

P

What can not even the number of accomplices make a wrong righteous? Let us see. The Usurper grows tired of his solitary position. He is fearful, or perhaps prefers that his subjects whip themselves to save him trouble; so he charters a few--accomplices. There is no use in avoiding the logical necessity of calling the new Usurpers the accomplices of the old one.

The monarchy has not ceased. The imperial rule was not at an end because the Cæsar associated another with him in the empire.

It is still a monarchy, a monarchy with accomplices.

By and bye the monarchy becomes constitutional: that is to say, the accomplices become too strong for the principal, the tools too strong for the user. They, instead of he, dictate the terms of their conspiracy.

The government remains the same in principle: a monarchy: but a monarchy held in commission. Still an usurpation, managed no longer by one Usurper, but by a Committee of Usurpers.

If the Committee choose to call their Chairman a President instead of a King, that does not affect the question of usurpation. A new name will not make a rogue honest.

If the Committee prefer to have no Chairman, but a dummy, to set the Crown on a bundle of old clothes that can do no wrong, neither does that alter the question of usurpation. With or without a real Chairman, there remains the Committee of Usurpers.

But some sudden fit, of remorse perhaps (if Usurpers are subject to remorse), impels the Committee of Usurpers to associate some eight hundred thousand or so of their fellows with them in the Commission.

There are

Well then, they have eight hundred thousand associates, or accomplices. just so many more Usurpers. And does that do away with the reproach of usurpation? Is not the evil principle of monarchy still there, the principle which violates the equal right of all, which rebels against and usurps the sovereignty of Humanity?

And if the reformed Committee enlarge their usurpation by admitting even four millions, what then? Will the cleverest of political arithmeticians inform us what number of accomplices is required in order that usurpation may cease to be usurpation, wrong become right, and a lie be true?

At what figure short of universal suffrage of men and women will you calculate the collective sovereignty of Humanity?

There only Usurpation ceases, when the real Sovereign, the whole People, ascends the car-borne throne of progress.

But what is meaned by Universal Suffrage?

The Voice of the whole People, uttering its will: that will its sole government. 'But how can a People govern itself? Surely only through its representatives?' That is to say, when no longer able to maintain an open usurpation, you would endeavour to usurp by other means.

It is the expression of the sovereign will that is required: how represent that?

How can one depute his will to another?

How can one exercise and abdicate sovereignty at one and the same time?

The appointment of a representative is an act of abdication.

He who abdicates, resigns his duty as a part of the collective sovereignty. He betrays the trust God placed in him; he rebels against the law of human progress; he treason

ously helps some one to usurp a power which is against Humanity.

If I choose one to do my bidding, I appoint a minister, a servant; I am still sovereign. This is choosing one to obey my will, not to represent it.

But if I choose a representative, another in my stead, there is an end of my will: at least for so long as he may continue in the place of power to which I help to raise him. But he shall only work my will. How shall he know it?

I will frame a Constitution.

A Constitution can contain only the broad principles upon which I would base my action. Again, how shall my representative know my will?

The law is the expression of the People's will. If your representatives make the laws without consulting your will, not you but they are sovereign.

Appoint men to frame projects of law-that is a servant's work: but how shall the servant know his master's will unless that will be expressed ?

It is no question of representation at all. Either the People or a portion of the People make the laws. If the whole People, that is the direct exercise of their sovereignty; if only the portion, whether 'representatives' or not, it is an usurpation; the evil principle of monarchy is there, however disguised.

Again, you have no right to abdicate that which is your mission upon earth. The laws which rule your life are words which become acts. Who but yourselves shall so determine your future ?

But the 'division of employments,' 'greater capacities,' 'difficulties in the way,' and other special pleas of the advocates of usurpation?

God's law recognizes no such division of employments' as the division of usurpation for this man, and slavery or neglect of duty for another. It is not within the scope of human rights to divide men into slaves and tyrants, under any pretence of employment. What shall hinder you from being advised by even the 'greatest capacities'? No need therefore to enthrone them. Still, though you take counsel, your will must remain sovereign.

[ocr errors]

As to difficulties in the way,' they are a sort of roaring lion which may be very frightful to grey-headed slaves, but which cannot hinder Humanity. There are after all no insurmountable difficulties in the way of God's law.

Have

Choose, O People, whom you will to advise you; appoint whom you will to execute your sovereign mandates; but dare not to abdicate your legislative power. your ministers, but be sovereign.

Sur

Make your own laws; express your own will; regulate your own course of life. render into no hands the sovereignty which can not be deputed, which must be exercised or abdicated.

Abdication is a denial of the divine mission of life, an abandonment of duty: it is suicide, atheism.

It matters not to show that some monarchs are benevolent and cheap and beautiful and harmless; it helps not to prove that representatives are convenient, or that sometimes they even square their wills with those of the 'masters' whom they rule.

It is no question here how you shall put an end to usurpatiou.

The question set before you, for your consideration, is the difference in principle between Monarchy and the Republic, between usurpation and real sovereignty, between the tyranny of any class and the law of liberty ordained by God.

Judge ye for yourselves!

And be your actions the honest echoes of your thought!

« 上一页继续 »