ereignty　of　the　will　instead　of　the　sovereignty　of　the　reason；　in　one　word；　the　passions　instead　of　justice。　　Undoubtedly；　when　a　nation　passes　from　the　monarchical　to　the　democratic　state；　there　is　progress；　because　in　multiplying　the　sovereigns　we　increase　the　opportunities　of　the　reason　to　substitute　itself　for　the　will；　but　in　reality　there　is　no　revolution　in　the　government；　since　the　principle　remains　the　same。　　Now；　we　have　the　proof　to…day　that；　with　the　most　perfect　democracy；　we　cannot　be　free。＇1＇
  ＇1＇　　See　De　Tocqueville；　〃Democracy　in　the　United　States；〃　and　Michel　Chevalier；　〃Letters　on　North　America。〃　　Plutarch　tells　us；　〃Life　of　Pericles；〃　that　in　Athens　honest　people　were　obliged　to　conceal　themselves　while　studying；　fearing　they　would　be　regarded　as　aspirants　for　office。
  Nor　is　that　all。　　The　nation…king　cannot　exercise　its　sovereignty　itself；　it　is　obliged　to　delegate　it　to　agents：　this　is　constantly　reiterated　by　those　who　seek　to　win　its　favor。　　Be　these　agents　five；　ten；　one　hundred；　or　a　thousand；　of　what　consequence　is　the　number；　and　what　matters　the　name？　　It　is　always　the　government　of　man；　the　rule　of　will　and　caprice。　　I　ask　what　this　pretended　revolution　has　revolutionized？
  We　know；　too；　how　this　sovereignty　was　exercised；　first　by　the　Convention；　then　by　the　Directory；　afterwards　confiscated　by　the　Consul。　　As　for　the　Emperor；　the　strong　man　so　much　adored　and　mourned　by　the　nation；　he　never　wanted　to　be　dependent　on　it；　but；　as　if　intending　to　set　its　sovereignty　at　defiance；　he　dared　to　demand　its　suffrage：　that　is；　its　abdication；　the　abdication　of　this　inalienable　sovereignty；　and　he　obtained　it。
  But　what　is　sovereignty？　　It　is；　they　say；　the　POWER　TO　MAKE　LAW。＇1＇　　Another　absurdity；　a　relic　of　despotism。　　The　nation　had　long　seen　kings　issuing　their　commands　in　this　form：　FOR　SUCH　IS　OUR　PLEASURE；　it　wished　to　taste　in　its　turn　the　pleasure　of　making　laws。　　For　fifty　years　it　has　brought　them　forth　by　myriads；　always；　be　it　understood；　through　the　agency　of　representatives。　　The　play　is　far　from　ended。
  ＇1＇　〃Sovereignty；〃　according　to　Toullier；　〃is　human　omnipotence。〃　A　materialistic　definition：　if　sovereignty　is　any　thing；　it　is　a　RIGHT　not　a　FORCE　or　a　faculty。　　And　what　is　human　omnipotence？
  The　definition　of　sovereignty　was　derived　from　the　definition　of　the　law。　　The　law；　they　said；　is　THE　EXPRESSION　OF　THE　WILL　OF　THE　SOVEREIGN：　then；　under　a　monarchy；　the　law　is　the　expression　of　the　will　of　the　king；　in　a　republic；　the　law　is　the　expression　of　the　will　of　the　people。　　Aside　from　the　difference　in　the　number　of　wills；　the　two　systems　are　exactly　identical：　both　share　the　same　error；　namely；　that　the　law　is　the　expression　of　a　will；　it　ought　to　be　the　expression　of　a　fact。　　Moreover　they　followed　good　leaders：　they　took　the　citizen　of　Geneva　for　their　prophet；　and　the　contrat　social　for　their　Koran。
  Bias　and　prejudice　are　apparent　in　all　the　phrases　of　the　new　legislators。　　The　nation　had　suffered　from　a　multitude　of　exclusions　and　privileges；　its　representatives　issued　the　following　declaration：　　ALL　MEN　ARE　EQUAL　BY　NATURE　AND　BEFORE　THE　LAW；　an　ambiguous　and　redundant　declaration。　　MEN　ARE　EQUAL　BY　NATURE：　does　that　mean　that　they　are　equal　in　size；　beauty；　talents；　and　virtue？　　No；　they　meant；　then；　political　and　civil　equality。　　Then　it　would　have　been　sufficient　to　have　said：　　ALL　MEN　ARE　EQUAL　BEFORE　THE　LAW。
  But　what　is　equality　before　the　law？　　Neither　the　constitution　of　1790；　nor　that　of　'93；　nor　the　granted　charter；　nor　the　accepted　charter；　have　defined　it　accurately。　　All　imply　an　inequality　in　fortune　and　station　incompatible　with　even　a　shadow　of　equality　in　rights。　　In　this　respect　it　may　be　said　that　all　our　constitutions　have　been　faithful　expressions　of　the　popular　will：　I　am　going；　to　prove　it。
  Formerly　the　people　were　excluded　from　civil　and　military　offices；　it　was　considered　a　wonder　when　the　following　high…　sounding　article　was　inserted　in　the　Declaration　of　Rights：　　〃All　citizens　are　equally　eligible　to　office；　free　nations　know　no　qualifications　in　their　choice　of　officers　save　virtues　and　talents。〃
  They　certainly　ought　to　have　admired　so　beautiful　an　idea：　they　admired　a　piece　of　nonsense。　　Why！　the　sovereign　people；　legislators；　and　reformers；　see　in　public　offices；　to　speak　plainly；　only　opportunities　for　pecuniary　advancement。　　And；　because　it　regards　them　as　a　source　of　profit；　it　decrees　the　eligibility　of　citizens。　　For　of　what　use　would　this　precaution　be；　if　there　were　nothing　to　gain　by　it？　　No　one　would　think　of　ordaining　that　none　but　astronomers　and　geographers　should　be　pilots；　nor　of　prohibiting　stutterers　from　acting　at　the　theatre　and　the　opera。　　The　nation　was　still　aping　the　kings：　like　them　it　wished　to　award　the　lucrative　positions　to　its　friends　and　flatterers。　　Unfortunately；　and　this　last　feature　completes　the　resemblance；　the　nation　did　not　control　the　list　of　livings；　that　was　in　the　hands　of　its　agents　and　representatives。　　They；　on　the　other　hand；　took　care　not　to　thwart　the　will　of　their　gracious　sovereign。
  This　edifying　article　of　the　Declaration　of　Rights；　retained　in　the　charters　of　1814　and　1830；　implies　several　kinds　of　civil　inequality；　that　is；　of　inequality　before　the　law：　inequality　ofstation；　since　the　public　functions　are　sought　only　for　the　consideration　and　emoluments　which　they　bring；　inequality　of　wealth；　since；　if　it　had　been　desired　to　equalize　fortunes；　public　service　would　have　been　regarded　as　a　duty；　not　as　a　reward；　inequality　of　privilege；　the　law　not　stating　what　it　means　by　TALENTS　and　VIRTUES。　　Under　the　empire；　virtue　and　talent　consisted　simply　in　military　bravery　and　devotion　to　the　emperor；　that　was　shown　when　Napoleon　created　his　nobility；　and　attempted　to　connect　it　with　the　ancients。　　To…day；　the　man　who　pays　taxes　to　the　amount　of　two　hundred　francs　is　virtuous；　the　talented　man　is　the　honest　pickpocket：　such　truths　as　these　are　accounted　trivial。
  The　people　finally　legalized　property。　　God　forgive　them；　for　they　knew　not　what　they　did！　　For　fifty　years　they　have　suffered　for　their　miserable　folly。　　But　how　came　the　people；　whose　voice；　they　tell　us；　is　the　voice　of　God；　and　whose　conscience　is　infallible；how　came　the　people　to　err？　　How　happens　it　that；　when　seeking　liberty　and　equality；　they　fell　back　into　privilege　and　slavery？　　Always　through　copying　the　ancient　regime。
  Formerly；　the　nobility　and　the　clergy　contributed　towards　the　expenses　of　the　State　only　by　voluntary　aid　and　gratuitous　gift；　their　property　could　not　be　seized　even　for　debt；while　the　plebeian；　overwhelmed　by　taxes　and　statute…labor；　was　continually　tormented；　now　by　the　king's　tax…gatherers；　now　by　those　of　the　nobles　and　clergy。　　He　whose　possessions　were　subject　to　mortmain　could　neither　bequeath　nor　inherit　property；　he　was　treated　like　the　animals；　whose　services　and　offspring　belong　to　their　master　by　right　of　accession。　　The　people　wanted　the　conditions　of　OWNERSHIP　to　be　alike　for　all；　they　thought　that　every　one　should　ENJOY　AND　FREELY　DISPOSE　OF　HIS　POSSESSIONS　HIS　INCOME　AND　THE　FRUIT　OF　HIS　LABOR　AND　INDUSTRY。　　The　people　did　not　invent　property；　but　as　they　had　not　the　same　privileges　in　regard　to　it；　which　the　nobles　and　clergy　possessed；　they　decreed　that　the　right　should　be　exercised　by　all　under　the　same　conditions。　　The　more　obnoxious　forms　of　propertystatute…labor；　mortmain；　maitrise；　and　exclusion　from　public　officehave　disappeared；　the　conditions　of　its　enjoyment　have　been　modified：　the　principle　still　remains　the　same。　　There　has　been　progress　in　the　regulation　of　the　right；　there　has　been　no　revolution。
  These；　then；　are　the　three　fundamental　principles　of　modern　society；　established　one　after　another　by　the　movements　of　1789　and　1830：　　1。　SOVEREIGNTY　OF　THE　HUMAN　WILL；　in　short；　DESPOTISM。　　2。　INEQUALITY　OF　WEALTH　AND　RANK。　　3。　PROPERTY　above　JUSTICE；　always　invoked　as　the　guardian　angel　of　sovereigns；　nobles；　and　proprietors；　JUSTICE；　the　general；　primitive；　categorical　law　of　all　society。
  We　must　ascertain　whether　the　ideas　of　DESPOTISM；　CIVIL　INEQUALITY　and　PROPERTY；　are　in　harmony　with　the　primitive　notion　of　JUSTICE；　and　necessarily　follow　from　it；assuming　various　forms　according　to　the　condition；　position；　and　relation　of　persons；　or　whether　they　are　not　rather　the　illegitimate　result　of　a　confusion　of　different　things；　a　fatal　association　of　ideas。　　And　since　justice　deals　especially　with　the　questions　of　government；　the　condition　of　persons；　and　the　possession　of　things；　we　must　ascertain　under　what　conditions；　judging　by　universal　opinion　and　the　progress　of　the　human　mind；　government　is　just；　the　condition　of　citizens　is　just；　and　the　possession　of　things　is　just；　then；　striking　out　every　thing　which　fails　to　meet　these　conditions；　the　result　will　at　once　tell　us　what　legitimate　government　is；　what　the　legitimate　condition　of　citizens　is；　and　what　the　legitimate　possession　of　things　is；　and　finally；　as　the　last　result　of　the　analysis；　what　JUSTICE　is。
  Is　the　authority　of　man　over　man　just？
  Everybody　answers；　〃No；　the　authority　of　man　is　only　the　authority　of　the　law；　which　ought　to　be　justice　and　truth。〃　　The　private　will　counts　for　nothing　in　go