Sloatery. 
642 
and in that capacity be invested with the government 
—Y— of the French Republic: “ That the titleof 
Causes of 
the Revolu- 
ton, 
and the imperial power, be made hevoditery in hints 
mily in the male line, according to the order of primo- 
iture,” 
This vote was carried by acclamation, Carnot being 
the only person who spoke against its ion. The 
Senate and the army followed the example of the Tri- 
bunate, intreating to become Emperor of 
France. Thus easily and tranquilly did Bonaparte ob- 
tain the object of his desires. ; 
- Ashe had been long married without children, he 
was allowed to adopt the children or grandchildren of good 
his brothers, when they arrived at the 
rovided he had no legitimate children. On the fai- 
eae of both legitimate and adopted heirs, the crown 
was to be enjoyed by his eldest brother Joseph, and 
his descendants; and, failing them, by his next bro- 
ther, and his descendants, &c. The members of the 
imperial family were to be called French Princes, and 
the eldest son the Imperial Prince. Every Emperor, 
within two years after he came to the throne, was to 
swear to maintain the integrity of the French empire. 
Thus that revolution, ere ak es for the ex- 
press purpose of establishing a government,— 
Uhich, shortly after its commencement, destroyed the 
‘king and the monarchy, and during which the very 
‘suspicion of being attached to the royal cause ex 
the susi party to certain death, terminated im the 
establishment of a military despotism. 
We have hitherto deferred a a develope- 
ment and explanation of the causes which produced, ei- 
ther directly or indirectly, or generally or partially, this 
revolution, as well as of the causes to which we ought to 
ascribe the rapid and total change in the nation, from an 
a tly strong and sincere attachment to liberty, to 
at least an acquiescence in military despotism ; and of 
those causes which contributed to the astonishing, and 
almost un eled successes and victories of the French 
arms. All these we have hitherto deferred entering 
upon, in order that we might view them in connection 
with each other ; for, in our opinion, these three events 
are intimately and necessarily connected, springing out 
of each other, as well as all of them, in some measure, 
originating ‘from the same circumstances. We shall 
mow consider them in their order. 
I. With respect to the causes which produced the 
French revolution, meg directly or indirectly, either 
ially or generally, in France, it may be proper to 
olan some general remarks on the caus which al- 
ter the character or fate of nations. Before philosophy 
had lent her aid to the lessons of experience and ob- 
servation, so as to draw from them their legitimate con- 
sequences, it was that the fate of a nation de- 
on the character and conduct of the leading 
of eighteen, 
‘individual or individuals insit-; and when that charac- 
ter and conduct were pointed out and . i it 
was taken for granted, that the icular circum- 
stances in the national history, which had attracted at- 
Scienty accounted for, Hut philosophy taught sat 
iently acco’ for. i taught, that 
no individual can operate changes, or poodle effects 
of an extraordinary nature, in any country, unless he 
act on materials suited to his purpose ; and that, as he 
must have been formed by the prevailing spirit and 
“habits of the nation on which he is su to operate, 
the very existence of such a character as his,is a proof 
that the nation was tending towards that change, which 
owas solely attributed to the influence of his character 
_we may regard these writings as having 
FRANCE. 
pre-eminence she did in warfare, or the advantages re- 
is 
correct, the history of Prussia, after the. of this 
and regards himself as a com of the 
most individuals can do Tittle pote oh — 
through the earoompae esd of the nation, by conform. 
ing to its character, employing its prejudices and 
feelings in the schemes which =, 
opinions and wishes of the French 3 but it 
uld be recollected, that on the mass of the 
these writings could have little er no influence, as | 
few of them they were read, nor could they have been 
understood had they been read... The hypothesis that 
ascribes the French revolution to this cause, confounds 
two distinct circumstances; or rather , that 
when it has accounted for one part of the 2 
it has accounted for the whole. The events of the re- 
volution sufficiently prove, that, even at its commence- 
ment, it was indicated not more by a change in the 
character, opinions, and conduct, of the more intelli- 
gent classes of the French community, than by a change 
in the characters, opinions, and conduct, of the. 
mass of the people, on whom the writings of the phi 
sophers could have had no influence. While, therefore, 
way, in some degree, for the revolution among the 
higher and more intelligent classes, we ought not to 
consider them as being exclusively the cause, even 
with regard to them, and certainly as by no means 
the cause with regard to the mass le pe — 
Nearly the same remarks will to the second Return ¢ 
veause to which the French revolution been attribu- 
ted. It has been.said, that, by the return of the officers #4 “Mt! 
and soldiers who served in America, principles and feel- yica, 
ings of liberty were spread over France, which, meet- 
of such men as Montesquieu, the ph 
Voltaire, Rousseau, Helvetius, &c. produced on the Ph¢' 
a 
ee 
