Chapter 6 Part 1 - 2

The French Constitution stipulates that anyone who pays an annual tax of sixty sous (two shillings and sixpence in Union City) has the right to vote.By what clause does Mr. Burke object to this?What could be more limited and outrageous than the qualifications of the English electors?It is restricted because less than one person in a hundred is allowed to vote in Great Britain (and I am not exaggerating).It is unreasonable because a person with extremely bad character and no considerable property to live a decent life can choose in some places. Handicraftsmen and farmers are collectively referred to as the third class. - translator

and in other places a man of good character who pays a large tax, and a farmer who pays three or four hundred pounds a year in rent, and whose property is worth three or four times that amount, has no right to vote. .In this strange confusion, as Mr. Burke has said on other occasions, everything was out of order, and all sorts of follies and bad things were mingled together.In this way William the Conqueror and his descendants distributed the lands of the country, bribing some districts with what they called charters, in order to make others better obey their will.This is why Cornwall has so many charters; the people opposed the government established at the time of the conquest, and the cities, therefore, defended themselves heavily, and gave them the advantage of enslaving the country.All the old charters were the mark of this conquest, from which the electoral irrationality arose.

The French constitution stipulates that the number of local representatives should maintain a certain proportion with the number of residents or voters who pay taxes. By what clause does Mr. Burke object to this?Yorkshire has a population of nearly one million, and only two county representatives are sent. Rutland County, which has a population of less than one percent of this number, also has two representatives.There were only three families in Jiushe Cimo Township, and they sent two representatives; Manchester Township had a population of more than 60,000, but none of them were sent. What principle is there to speak of?What sign of freedom can be found here, or what sign of wisdom?It is no wonder that Mr. Burke is unwilling to make a comparison, but tries to divert the reader from the point of view with self-contradictory gibberish.

The French constitution stipulates that the National Assembly is elected every two years.By what clause does Mr. Burke object to this?Of course, the people have no right at all in this matter, and the government is completely arbitrary; and he can cite the example of the last Congress as a strong proof.The French constitution stipulates that the hunting law is abolished, and the farmer has the right to obtain the wild animals hunted on his land (because the wild animals are fed by the things produced on these lands); any monopoly is prohibited, and everyone is free to buy and sell. Freedom to pursue any occupation leading to a decent living anywhere in the country, town or city.What can Mr. Burke say about this one?In England wild animals are owned by those who feed them without a penny; as for monopolies, the country is divided into innumerable monopolies.Each chartered town is itself a kind of aristocratic monopoly, out of which the eligibility for election is derived.Is this freedom?Is this what Mr. Burke calls the Constitution?

Under these chartered monopolies a man from elsewhere in the country is pursued like a foreign enemy.An Englishman is not free in his own country; he is barricaded everywhere, and told that he is not free, that he has no rights.Among these monopolies there are other monopolies.For example, in a town like Bard, with about 20,000 to 30,000 inhabitants, the right to elect members is monopolized by about thirty-one persons.And among these monopolies there are other monopolies.Even a man of the same town is often deprived of the natural right to a vocation, however gifted or industrious he may be, if his parents have not been able to give him one.

Might these examples be offered as examples to a nation reborn from slavery like France?Of course not.I am sure that once the English have considered this, they will, as the French have done, wipe out the signs of ancient oppression and the vestiges of conquered nations.Had Mr. Burke been as capable as the author of The Wealth of Nations, he would have known all those elements which touch upon the Constitution and synthesize it.He should have explained everything clearly.He is unworthy of the subjects he writes about not only because he is prejudiced but because his mind is disorganized, his mind is not even organized.

His mind is disorganized rather than organized.But he had to say a few words.Therefore, he hangs in the air like a balloon, attracting the eyes of the crowd standing on the ground. ① Some versions here insert the following sentence: "It should be admitted that all these circumstances have changed, but much remains to be done before we can obtain a fair and reasonable law of popular elections".This paragraph is very appropriate as an editor's note, but it is very inappropriate to put it in the main text. ——Original Editor The French constitution has a lot to learn.Conquest and tyranny had been transplanted from Normandy to England by William the Conqueror, and the country still suffers from them to this day.May the example of all France contribute to the restoration of liberty destroyed by one of its provinces!

The French constitution stipulates that in order to prevent the corruption of national representatives, members of the National Assembly shall not serve as government officials or receive dry salaries.What will Mr. Burke propose against this?Let me answer for him in a low voice: Bread and fish!This government of bread and fish is far more harmful than the people think. The National Assembly discovered this and set an example to the world.Governments couldn't do a better job than they are doing if they deliberately bickered in order to tax their people to squeeze them out. In my opinion, everything the British government does is contrary to common sense and contrary to what it says.

Parliament, notwithstanding the unfavorable manner of its elections and its lack of rules, is at last entrusted by the people to manage the treasury; but the English Parliament is constituted as if one were both mortgager and chargeee, and in case of abuse of power, That would be like a prisoner holding court to judge himself.If the people who voted for the funding were the ones who voted to receive the funding, and who were responsible for explaining to those who voted for the funding, it would be self-responsible.In this way, the "comedy of errors" takes the form of "silent pantomime"

end.The ruling party and the opposition party will not mention this matter, and the national treasury becomes a public rental horse that everyone can ride.This is just like what the country people say, "Riding on a tether—you ride for a while and I will ride again." ①In France, these matters are handled better.The French constitution states that the right to war and peace belongs to the nation, but to whom can this right belong but to those who pay the costs? In England it is said that this right resides in a metaphor which is exhibited in the Tower of London and costs six envoys, or a shilling, for each viewing: it turned out to be lions.To say that this right resides in the lion is a step closer to rationality, since any inanimate metaphor is no more than a top hat or a skullcap.We all know how absurd it is to worship the golden bull of Atatha or the image of Nebuchadnezzar.But since people look down on others doing such absurd things, why do they continue to do it themselves?

There is good reason to say that this manner of representing British nationals does not show where the right ascribes, whether to the Crown or to Parliament.In all nations war is the common good of all who share in the distribution and expenditure of the public money.It is a means of subjugation; its purpose is to increase the revenue of the country; since it cannot be increased without taxation, an excuse must be found for expenditure.Just examine the history of the British government, its wars and its taxes, and an outsider, not blinded by prejudice and distorted by self-interest, will say that taxes were not raised for wars, but wars were waged for taxes. of. Mr. Burke, as a member of the House of Commons, was a member of the British government; and though he professed to be an anti-war, he abused the French constitution, which sought to abolish war.He thought that the British government was in every way a model for France; but he should first know what the French thought of the British government.They support their own government, and hold that that part of the liberty enjoyed by England can be just a little more effective in enslaving a country than by despotism, and since the real object of all despotism is age. It is the custom in some parts of the country that when two pedestrians have only one horse, just as the treasury cannot be double burdened, one horse cannot ride two people at the same time. Therefore, one person first gets on the horse and rides two or three miles, and then takes the The horse was tied in front of a house, and he walked forward by himself.When the second traveler has arrived, he unhooks the horse, mounts it, and passes his companion for a mile or two, then hitches the horse again, and so on. --author ②The Tower of London is an ancient castle in London, England. It was the residence of the royal family in the Middle Ages, and later it was used as a cell for detaining prominent figures. - translator ③ Aaron is a legendary figure in the Bible. He melted a golden bull and worshiped it. - translator ④ Nebuchadnezzar was the king of Babylon in the sixth century AD. - translator A government thus organized will gain more than either a bare despotism or a system of full liberty, and therefore, as the interest lies, the government is opposed to both despotism and liberty.They also explain why these governments are always so willing to engage in war by commenting on the various motives that produce it.For despotic governments, war is the result of arrogance; but for those governments who use war as a means of taxation, war is more often threatened. To prevent both these evils, therefore, the constitution of France deprived the king and ministers of the power of declaring war, and gave it to the party who had to pay for it. When the question of the powers of war and peace was vigorously discussed in the National Assembly, the British people seemed very interested in it, and highly praised the resolutions passed by the National Assembly.As a matter of principle, this resolution applies to one country as well as to another.William the Conqueror, as a conqueror, had the power of war and peace alone, and his descendants have since followed to claim this power for themselves. While Mr. Burke affirms the right of Parliament during the Revolution to permanently bind and control the nation and its descendants, he at the same time denies any right of Parliament or the nation to alter what he calls the succession to the throne, except in part or in some way.By taking this position, he traces the matter back to the time of the Norman Conquest, so that he draws a line of succession from William the Conqueror to the present day, thus making it necessary to inquire who and what William the Conqueror was , where was he born, and delves into the origin, history, and nature of so-called privilege.All things must have a beginning, to be discovered through time and ancient clouds.Let Mr. Burke bring up William of Normandy, for his argument goes back to this origin.Unfortunately, when drawing this line of succession to the throne, another line parallel to it also appeared, that is to say, if the succession of the throne follows the line of conquest, the people follow the line of being conquered. line, and Mr. Burke's argument should extricate itself from this accusation. It might be said that, though the right to declare war was inherited from the conquerors, it was handicapped by the power of Congress to withhold provisions.It is inevitable that tinkering with a thing that is wrong will not make it right.In addition, it is not uncommon to see that tinkering is as bad as it is good, and this is one such example.For if one side declares war hastily in the name of exercising power, and the other categorically withholds supplies in the name of exercising power, the cure will be as bad as the disease or worse. One side forces the people to fight, and the other side binds the people's hands; but the more likely outcome is that the struggle will end in collusion between the two sides and become a cover for both sides. There are three points that should be considered on the question of war.First, the power to declare war; second, the cost of war; third, the manner in which war is waged after it has been declared.The French constitution grants the right to declare war to those who bear the cost of war, and the two can only be reflected in the citizens.The manner in which war is to be conducted after declaration of war is entrusted to the executive branch.If all countries did this, we would hear no news of war. Before I proceed to the rest of the French Constitution, in order to lighten the fatigue of the controversy, I would like to tell an anecdote I heard from Dr. Franklin. When Dr. Franklin was stationed in France as the American Minister during the War of Independence, he received countless proposals from speculators of all kinds from all over the world. They hoped to go to this country full of milk and honey--America; one of them was He proposed to make him king himself.He wrote (the letter is now in the hands of M. Marché, the City of Paris) to advise the doctor that, first, since the Americans have deposed or driven out their king, they must need another king.Second, he himself was Norman. Thirdly, He came of a family older and more honorable than the Duke of Normandy, and his line was never corrupted.Fourth, there is a precedent for a king from Normandy in England.On these grounds he proposed that he should be king himself, and charged the doctor to convey this proposal to America.But Dr. Franklin neither complied nor replied to his letter, and the speculator wrote another letter, which did not threaten to go out to conquer America himself, but only solemnly proposed that if his proposal was not accepted, , can pay him a gift of about thirty thousand pounds in return for his magnanimity!Now, as all talk of the succession of the throne necessarily relates to its origin, Mr. Burke's talk on the subject shows that the king was not of English blood, but that they were descended from a Norman line of conquest.It may, therefore, be useful to his theory to tell the story, and at the same time to show him that, if by the inevitable natural death of any man, some more could be brought from Normandy at a cheaper price than William the Conqueror. The King is coming; and thus the good Englishmen of the Revolution of 1688 might have done much better if a Norman as magnanimous as this one had known their needs, and they had known his.The chivalry that Mr. Burke admired was a much easier deal than a formidable Dutchman.But back to the Constitution. The French constitution stipulates that all titles are abolished.In this way, the various generations of people who are called "nobles" in some countries and noble families in others are eliminated, and nobles are raised to "men". Titles are nothing more than nicknames, and each title is a title.There is no harm in such a thing, but it marks a pompous tendency in the character, and thus degrades it.It makes men small in great things, and women hypocritical in small things.He showed off her beautiful blue ribbons like a girl, and his new garters like a child.A writer belonging to the older generation said: "When I was a child, I thought about childish things in my heart, but when I grew up, I forgot all about childish things." The abolition of titles is a stupid thing, of course, from the noble heart of France.France has grown out of the children's clothes of counts and dukes, and in the clothes of men.France was not pushed down, but raised.It has left the dwarf behind and lifted the adult up.Insignificant and meaningless words like duke and earl are no longer pleasant.Even those who have titles have abandoned the inexplicable appellation, and now that they are free from the rickets, they hate the rattling of the boner ones.The sincere heart of man longs to return to his old home, society, and sneers at the little toys that separate him from society. Like the circle drawn by the magician's wand, the title narrows the circle of man's happiness, and he is imprisoned in the Bastille of the word title, watching from afar the enviable human life. So is it surprising that France has abolished titles?Isn't it even more surprising that these titles are preserved elsewhere?What is the title?What are they worth? "How much are they worth?" When we think or speak of a judge or a general, we associate it with the concepts of office and virtue, and we think of the dignity of the former, of valour; contacted it.There are no such animals as "Duke" and "Count" in Adam's complete vocabulary; nor can we associate any concept with these words.Whether these words mean strong or weak, wise or stupid, child or man, knight or horse, is all ambiguous.Why pay attention to these things that neither describe nor specify anything? Human imagination has endowed half-man, half-horse monsters, satyrs with horse ears and ponytails, and even all demons and ghosts with the image and character; but the title makes even fantasy powerless, and is a monster that cannot be imagined. But that's not enough to tell the whole story.Titles are worthless if the whole nation despises them, and no one wants them.Only public opinion can make a title eminent, or disgraced, or worse.There is no need to force titles to be removed, because once the whole society laughs at them, the titles will automatically be removed.This imaginary is visibly on the decline everywhere in Europe, and it dies as fast as the world of reason rises.There was a time when the lowest rank of so-called nobility was more thought of than the highest rank is now thought of, and a man on a prancing horse, galloping all over Christendom, was more insured than a modern man. Duke is more compelling.The whole world has seen that folly fall, and fall with laughter, and the farce of the title will meet the same fate.French patriots had discovered in time that social status and dignity necessitated a new position.The old position has collapsed.The concrete position of character must now be taken, and not the utopian position of titles, which they have put on the altar as an offering to reason. If the folly of titles had not done any harm, it would not have needed to be abolished by a solemn order of the National Assembly, which would have required a further study of the nature and qualities of the nobility. That which some countries call "nobility" and others "nobility" has its origin in a government based on conquest.It was originally a rank of soldiers to support military government (as is the case with all governments based on conquest); Disinherited, primogeniture laws came into being. In this legal system, the nature and characteristics of the nobility are fully exposed.This law is opposed to every other law of nature, and nature itself demands its annihilation.To establish the impartiality of the family, the aristocracy must collapse.According to the primogeniture system of nobles, a family of six children, five of them will be abandoned.Aristocracy does not tolerate more than one child, and the rest suffer.They are cast for cannibals, an unnatural meal prepared by their natural parents. Anything that violates human feelings will affect the interests of society to some extent, and this is the same.All the children (other than the eldest son) abandoned by the nobles were generally provided for by the public in the same way as orphans were given up to the parish, but at a greater expense.The establishment of unnecessary institutions and establishments in government or courts, at the expense of the public. With what parental affection can parents care for their young children?By nature they were children, by marriage they were descendants; but by aristocracy they were illegitimate children and orphans.On the one hand, they are the flesh and blood of their parents, and on the other hand, they have no blood relationship with their parents.Therefore, in order to return parents to children, and children to parents—to restore the relationship between man and man, and man to society, and to destroy once and for all the monstrosity of aristocracy, the French constitution has abolished primogeniture.Here lies the monster, and Mr. Burke may, if he pleases, write an epitaph upon it. We have so far considered aristocracy chiefly from one point of view; we must now consider it from another.But aristocracy is a monster, whether viewed from the front or from behind, from the side or from any angle, from the family standpoint or from the public standpoint.In France, the aristocracy lacks one of the five senses than other aristocracy.It does not form a hereditary legislative body, it is not a "noble corporation" as I have heard the Marquis de Lafayette describe the House of Lords in England.Let us examine, then, the reasons why the French Constitution has decided against having such a chamber in France. First, because nobles are naturally not worthy of being the cowards of a country.Their notion of a fair distribution has been fundamentally corrupted.They begin their lives trampling all their siblings and other various other relatives and are educated to do so.What sense of justice or honor can enter a legislature from a man who monopolizes the inheritance of his brothers and sisters, or who presumptuously bestows upon them a meager portion of his property? Thirdly, because the idea of ​​a hereditary legislator is as irrational as a hereditary judge or a hereditary jury; it is as absurd as a hereditary mathematician, or a hereditary philosopher, or a hereditary poet laureate. Fourth, because the gang themselves are accountable to no one, they should not be trusted by anyone. Fifth, because aristocracy continues to promote the barbaric principles of government based on conquest and the base idea of ​​man as property and over others by his own power.Sixth, because aristocracy tends to degenerate the race.It is known from the laws of nature, and shown from the example of the Jews, that the race has a tendency to degenerate when a small number of people are isolated from the mass of the community and there are frequent intermarriages between them.Aristocracy even undermines the ends it professes to achieve, and sooner or later it turns the noble qualities of man against them.Mr. Burke talked too much about nobility, so I asked him to explain what nobility is?The world's most eminent men are of commoner origin. The nobles have never been able to keep up with the pace of the common people.How insignificant the man-made "nobility" is in the face of the "nobles" of nature; there are indeed a few nobles (there are such people in every country) who miraculously retain their innocent hearts, but those people They all despise the nobility.Now it's time to move on to a new topic. The French constitution reformed the treatment of priests, which increased the income of low and middle priests and decreased the income of senior priests.No one now has an income of less than twelve thousand breves (fifty pounds), nor more than two or three thousand pounds.What does Mr. Burke argue against this?And listen to what he has to say. He said: "The English people can see an archbishop before a duke without bitterness or resentment; they can understand a Bishop of Durham or a Bishop of Winchester with ten thousand pounds a year, but not why it is in the wrong hands, That is, in the hands of this earl or that squire, there can be an equal amount of property." Mr. Burke offered this to France as an example. Regarding the first half of the passage, whether the archbishop precedes the duke, or the duke precedes the archbishop, I think that, to the average person, it is a bit like Sternhold and Hopkins or Hopkins and Steinhold. Put whichever you like first, Turnhold; to be honest, I don't know what's in it, so I don't want to argue with Mr. Burke. But I have a few words to say about the second half of this passage.Mr. Burke was not quite right.Comparing a bishop with a patrician or a squire is somewhat nondescript, and a bishop should be compared with a curate, which becomes:-- "The people of England can see the Bishop of Durham or the Bishop of Winchester earn ten thousand pounds a year, and the curate Thirty to forty pounds a year or less, without bitterness or resentment." No, sir, they certainly don't look at these things without pain or resentment.This is a matter which touches every man's sense of justice, and is one of the many reasons why a constitution is urgently demanded. The cries of "Church! Church!" are as loud in France as in Mr. Burke's book, and as loud as in the English Parliament when the Anti-Conformity Bill was introduced; cheat. They understand that, no matter how well-spoken they are, they alone are one of the main targets of the question.It was the high-income clergy who clamored, in order to prevent any adjustment of income between those who lived at ten thousand pounds a year and the vicar.Most French clergy, therefore, relate their situation to that of other oppressed classes and receive compensation for it. The French constitution abolished the tithe, which was the cause of eternal discord between the tithe-bearers and the parishioners.The tithing of land is effected when the estate is owned by two parties; one tenth of the income is given to the other nine-tenths; Double or treble, or any other rate, the cost of this improvement should be borne in equal proportions by both parties sharing the benefit.This is not the case with tithes: the peasant bears the full cost, and the tax collector receives a tenth of the increase in production in addition to the original tenth, so that he receives two tenths instead of one tenth. .This is yet another example of the need for a constitution. The French constitution has also abolished or abandoned "freedom of religion" and "tolerance of heresy", and established ① livre (11vres), the name of the ancient French currency. - translator ②It means Zhang San and Li Si in Chinese. - translator Universal right to freedom of thought. "Freedom of religious belief" is not the opposite of "tolerance of heresy", but a refurbishment of it.Both are despotisms.One presumes the right to suppress "freedom of belief," the other grants it.One is the pope armed with fire and wood, the other is the pope who sells or grants immunity. The former is church and state, and the latter is church and business. But "freedom of religious belief" can also be viewed with a stricter perspective.Man does not worship himself, but the Creator; he demands freedom of belief not to serve himself, but to serve God.In this case, therefore, there must be the concept of seeing two things in relation: the mortal being worshiped and the immortal god being worshiped.Therefore, "freedom of belief" places itself not between man and man, church and church, sect and sect, but between God and man, worshiper and worshiped; and, It also presumptuously and blasphemously allows Almighty God to accept such worship with the stolen authority by which it is permitted. If a bill were introduced in any parliament called the "Act to Permit or Consent Almighty God to Accept the Worship of Jews or Turks" or "Bill to Prohibit Almighty God from Accepting the Worship of Jews or Turks", everyone would be shocked and cursed It's disrespectful.This will cause an uproar.In this way, the tyrannical face of allowing freedom in religious matters is exposed.But this arbitrariness is not lessened by the fact that those laws deal only with the title "man," for the related concepts of worshiper and worshiped are inseparable.You vain mortal, whatever you call yourself, king, bishop, church, state, council, or anything else, what is it that dares to meddle too much in men and others? Something between the Creator? Mind your own business!If his beliefs are different from yours, it proves that your beliefs are different from his, and there is no power in the world that can decide which of you is right. As to sects of religion, if each man were to judge his own religion, no one would be wrong; if men were to judge each other's, no one would be right; Not everyone is wrong.But as far as religion itself is concerned, no matter what the name is, as the worship of gods by the human family, it is the fruit of the soul dedicated by man to the "Creator". Although these fruits can be different from each other like the fruits of the earth, each person is filled with Tributes of thanks are all accepted by the "Creator". The Bishop of Durham, or the Bishop of Winchester, or the Archbishop at the head of the duke, will not refuse a sheaf of wheat because it is not hay, nor that a bale of hay is not Wheat: nor because a pig that is one in ten is neither grass nor wheat; but these are the people who, under the posture of the state religion, do not allow people to pay homage to the Creator in various sects. One of the recurring tones in Mr. Burke's book is "Church and State."He does not mean a particular church or a particular nation, but all churches and nations.He used this expression as the general formula for the political theory that the churches in each country should always be united with the state, and blamed the French National Assembly for not doing so.Let us also make some comments on this issue. All religions are benevolent in nature and combined with moral principles.They cannot preach anything sinful, cruel, harmful, or immoral in the first place, or they will not attract believers.Like everything else, they had their beginnings, in persuasion, persuasion, and demonstration.How did they lose their gentleness and become difficult and narrow-minded? The case begins with a combination of the kind recommended by Mr. Burke.Combine church and state, and there is a hybrid animal that can only destroy, not raise, called the Church of the Law.The church had been a stranger even to his own mother from its birth, and would always end up kicking and killing her. The Spanish Inquisition began not with the religion originally proclaimed, but with this mongrel produced by Church and State.Smithfield's fires also began from the same alien monster; and it was this monster that later reborn in England, revived the resentment and anti-religious sentiment among the people, and called the Quakers and non-Christians. Anglicans were deported to America.Persecution is not an inherent feature of any religion, but it has always been a prominent feature of all "legal religions" or legally established religions.Get rid of "established according to law", and all kinds of religions will restore their original generosity.In America, a Catholic priest is a good citizen, a good man, and a good neighbor.The Methodist ministers are of the same kind; not so much because of their performance, but because there is no legally established church in America. If we look at this matter with worldly eyes, we can see its bad consequences for the prosperity of the country.Church and state combined to impoverish Spain.The abolition of Nantes Buring has driven the silk industry from Mo to England; church and state are driving the cotton industry from England to France and America. Let Mr. Burke go on preaching his anti-political theories of Church and State!There will be benefits.The National Assembly will not listen to him, but will benefit from his stupid words.It was precisely because of these evils that the United States saw England and raised its vigilance against it; it was because of these evils that France experienced that the National Assembly abolished it and, like America, established "universal rights to freedom of conscience and universal citizenship." right". ①This concludes my comparison of the principles of the French constitution. I will conclude this part of the discussion with a little examination of the organizational forms of government in France and England.The executive power of both countries rests in the hands of a man called "the king"; but the French constitution distinguishes between the king and the sovereign.It regards the king's position as an official function, while the sovereignty is delegated to the citizens. The National Assembly is composed of national representatives, who have legislative power and are elected by the people, and election is the natural right of the people.Not so in England; this right derives from the primitive institution called the monarch, since, by conquest, all the rights of a people or state are concentrated in the hands of the conqueror, who ascribes to himself the title of king.What in France is at present held as a right in the hands of the people or the state, is regarded in England as a so-called beneficence of the king.The British Parliament and its two houses were chartered by the descendants of the conquerors.The House of Commons did not arise from the right of the people to appoint representatives or elect, but by a gift or grace. The shape is even worse. — but that is changing.法国和美国向所有到来的人表示欢迎，并使他们享有公民的一切权利。因此，政策和利益在英国将占上风（但恐怕已太晚了），而理性与主义却不能。那些制造业正在从英国撤出，并在别处兴起。目前，在离巴黎三英里的帕西正在建造一个大型棉纺厂，在美国则已建成了好几个。在废除宣誓法的议案遭到否决后不久，我听到英国一位极为富有的制造商说，“阁下，英国不是非国教徒安身之处——我们只好到法国去。”这是实话，说出来对双方都是公平的。把英国制造业提到现有高度的主要是非国教徒，也正是这些人有权把它们搬走；尽管这些制造业今后还会继续在那些地方生产，国外市场却丧失了。 《伦敦公报》经常摘要刊登关于阻止机器和人员（凡法令所涉及到的人员）出境的某些法令。从中可以看出，宣誓法和依法建立教会的不良后果已开始在很大程度上被感觉到了；可是，暴力补救方法永远也不能弥补理性补救方法的不足。在不到一个世纪的过程中，英国和英国所有效派的没有议员选举权的那一部分人——人数之多至少超出一百倍——会开始感到非制定一部宪法不可，到那时，所有这些事情也就会正常地进行了。 --author 〔这一注解及其所属整个一段文字在后来的一些版本中被略去了。 ——Original Editor 〕*宣誓法： 1673 年英国国会通过，规定政府人员必须按照国教仪式举行仪式，放弃天主被信念。 1828年撤销。 - translator 法国宪法总是把国民置于国王之前。《人权宣言》第三条说：“国民是一切主权之源。”柏克先生却辩称，在英国，国王才是源泉，他是一切荣誉之源泉。这种观念显然是征服传下来的；我就不多加评论了，我只想说，征服的特性就是把一切事情都颠倒过来；因为还有让柏克先生第二次说话的权利，并且因为这个比喻只有两部分含义，即喷泉和喷口，第二次他会说对的。 法国宪法把立法置于行政之前，法律置于国王之前；“法律，国王”。 这也是物之常理；因为必须先有法律，然后才能执行法律。 法国国王在向国民议会讲话时，不象英国国王说“我的国会”那样，说“我的议会”。他不能以此称呼宪法，也不允许这样做。在英国这样做也许是适当的，因为如上所述，英国国会两院都出自国王的特许或恩赐，而不是出自人民的固有权利，法国的国民议会则出自人民的固有权利，它的名称就指明了它的由来。 国民议会议长并不象英国下院那样请求国王赐予议会以言论自由。国民议会宪法的尊严不能使它贬低自己。言论首先是人们永久保有的天赋权利之一；就国民议会而言，运用这种权利乃是他们的义务，而国民则是他们的权威。他们是由最大多数人运用欧洲人未之前闻的选举权选出来的。他们不是从腐败的享有选举特权的城市中产生的，也不是依附贵族的代理人。他们感到自己秉性的尊严，力求保持这种本色。不论对问题赞成还是反对，他们在议会上的讲话都是自由、大胆和有骨气的，并且涉及问题的各个方面和各种情况。如果事情或论题关系到行政部门或主持者面前，他们照样用男子气概和正人君子的语言辩论下去；他们的答问或演说也受到同样的方式对待。 他们不以粗俗无知的空虚神情超然物外，也不以溜须拍马的下贱态度卑躬屈膝。真理的庄重自豪感漫无止境，并且在生活的一切领域保持着人类的正直品质。 让我们再看看问题的另一面吧。在英国议会对其国王的致辞中，既没有象法国旧国会那种无畏精神，也没有新国民议会那种安祥沉着的庄严；更没有丝毫迹近生硬的英国风度。它们既不是外来品，也不是天然的英国产品，它们的来源要到别处去找，这就是诺曼人的征服。它们显然是一种臣属的态度，并且有力地标明一种仅仅存在于征服者与被征服者之间的匐伏在地的距离。这种臣属观念和发言方式甚至在1688年革命时也未去掉，这可以从国会致威廉与玛丽的宣言中的这些话明显地看出来：“我们最谦恭和最忠诚地表达我们自己和我们的子孙后代永远顺从之意”，“顺从”完全是臣属的措辞，同自由的尊严极不相容，这是征服时期所用的语言的摹仿。 判断任何事物都要通过比较。对1688年的革命，尽管在当时情况下可以作高于它本身价值的赞扬，但还是应该对它作出恰如其分的评价。它已经衰落下去，日益扩大的理性范围以及美法两国的光辉革命已使它暗然失色。要不了一个世纪，它将和柏克先生的着作一起，“扔进储藏一切垃圾的家庭地窖”。那时，人们将很难相信，一个自称为自由的国家居然会到荷兰去请一个人来①，给他权力，以便使自己怕他，每年还给他近百万镑，让自己和自己的子孙后代象奴婢般永远顺从他。 但是有一个真情应该让人知道：我曾有机会看到这一点，即不论表面现①指1688年11月英国国会派代表去荷兰迎接荷兰执政者威廉到英国为王。 - translator 象如何，随便哪类人轻视君主，都没有官廷大臣来得厉害。但他们深知，如果让别人看出破绽，就象他们所看到的那样，就蒙不下去了。他们的处境就象靠变戏法为生的人，他们对戏法的愚蠢是那么熟悉，自己也觉得好笑，但如果观众在这方面也变得象他们一样聪明，那戏法就拆穿了，钱也没了。就君主政体来说，一个共和主义者同一个朝臣之间的差别在于，共和主义者反对君主政体，相信它有点名堂，而朝臣则讥笑君主体制，知道它一点名堂也没有。 由于过去我经常同柏克先生通信，当时相信他的为人比他的着作的表现显得有原则，所以去冬我特意从巴黎写信给他，告诉他那里的事情进展得多么顺当。信中除别的事情外，我还提到国民议会的可喜处境：提到他们业已采取把道德义务与政治利益相结合的立场。他们无需说自己也不相信的话骗别人相信。他们的地位无需用手段来支撑，而只能由开明的人士来维持。他们的目的不是要助长愚昧，而是要铲除愚昧。他们不象英国阁员或反对党那样，虽然互相反对，还是联合起来保持共同的机密。国民议会必需大开光明之门。它必须向人显示人应有的品质；越使人接近于这个标准，国民议会地位就越巩固。 在研究法国宪法时，我们看到一切事情都井然有序。原则与形式相协调，二者又和它们的发端相协调。也许有人会替坏形式辩护，说它们不过是形式而已，但这是错误的。形式来自原则，并在运用中继续发展原则。坏的形式只能根据坏的原则去推行。坏的形式也不能硬加于好的原则：任何一个政府，如果它的形式是坏的，它的原则也肯定是坏的。 这里，我要最后结束这个论题。我在开始时曾说过，柏克先生已自动放弃把英法两国的宪法相比较。他对没有这样做表示歉意，说他没有时间。柏克先生的书写了八个多月，长达三百六十六页。正如他对这个问题避而不谈有损于他的事业一样，他的道歉使情况更糟；海峡那一边的英国人会开始想，在所谓的英国宪法中到底是不是有一些根本的毛病，以致柏克先生只好不做比较，免得把毛病暴露出来。 柏克先生既然没有谈到宪法，所以也就没有谈法国革命。他没有叙述革命的开始或其进程。他只是表示惊讶。他说：“在我看来，我好象处在一个极大的危机之中，这不仅是法国一国的事，而是全欧洲，也许超越全欧洲的事。从一切情况来衡量，法国革命是迄今为止世界上发生过的最令人吃惊的革命。” 聪明人对蠢事吃惊，蠢人对聪明事吃惊，我不知道柏克先生吃惊所为何来；但有一点可以肯定，他根本不了解法国革命。法国革命好象是从混乱中进发出来的新事物，其实只是在法国早已存在的思想革命的结果。国民的心理早已发生变化，事物的新秩序自然随着思想的新秩序应运而生。在这里，我将尽可能扼要地追溯一下法国革命的发展过程，并指出促成这一革命的种种条件。 路易十四的暴政，再加上他的宫廷的荒淫无耻以及他秉性的浮夸不实，曾经大大压抑同时又迷惑了法国人民的心理，以致他们好象失去了一切尊严感，一味想到他们大皇帝的尊严；而路易十五全部在位期间，又仅以软弱无能和忧柔寡断着称，情况毫无改变，反而使国民更进一步陷于麻木不仁的境地而不能自拔。 在这期间，显示自由精神的唯一标志只能从法国哲学家的着作中找到。 波尔多议会议长孟德斯鸠做了专制政府统治下的作家所能做到的一切；由于他不得不既讲原则又小心谨慎，他的思想往往隐而不露，因此我们应当相信他有更多的想法没有表达出来。 伏尔泰既是专制政治的颂扬者又是讽刺者，做法有所不同。他的长处在于暴露与嘲笑教士权术和政治权术相结合而加诸于政府的种种迷信。他作出这些抨击不是由于只注重原则或热爱人类（因为讽刺与博爱不是天然协调的），而是由于他看穿丑事真相的卓越能力以及揭露丑事的不可抑制的意向。 可是，这些抨击之令人生畏，宛如出于善良的动机，因此他值得人类的感谢胜于尊崇。 相反，我们在卢梭与顿纳尔教长的着作中发现热爱自由的思想感情，它令人尊敬并提高了人的能力；但是在激发了这种蓬勃向上的生气之后，却没有指导它去发挥作用，只是听任人们爱上一样东西，并没有阐明如何去占有这样东西。 魁奈和杜尔哥以及这些作家的朋友们的着作，都是属于严肃一类的；但是他们与孟德斯鸠一样，在不利的条件下从事写作；他们的着作中充满了有关政府的道德箴言，但只涉及精简和改革政府的行政方面，而不涉及政府本身。 然而，所有这些着作和其他许多着作都是有分量的，它们以不同方式讨论政府问题，孟德斯鸠用他关于法律的见解和知识，伏尔泰用他的机智，卢梭和赖纳尔用他们的生动活泼，魁奈和杜尔哥用他们的道德箴言和经济体系，使各式各样的读者都获得了适合他们口味的东西，当英国和它当时在美洲的殖民地发生争执的时候，一种政治上寻根追底的气氛就开始在法国全境传播开了。 由于把在美洲发生的军事事变同美国革命的原则分离开来是不可能的，把这些事变在法国公布就必然要与生产事变的原则联系起来。许多事变本身就是原则，例如美国《独立宣言》，《法美同盟条约》，它们承认人的天赋权利，认为反抗压迫是正当的。当时的法国总理维尔日纳伯爵不是美国的朋友，可以公道而感激他说，倒是法国王后使美国发生的事情在宫廷中流传开来。维尔日纳伯爵是富兰克林博士的私交又是社交，富兰克林通情达理的文雅态度对他有所影响，但在原则上维尔日纳伯爵仍然是专断独行的。 富兰克林博士作为美国驻法公使，他的地位应列入一连串事件之中。在社会上，活动范围最小的就数外交人员，大家由于互相猜疑而不相往来，外交人员就象一个失去联系的原子。不断地冲击和被冲击。但富兰克林博士却不是如此。他不是官廷的外交官，而是人民的外交官。他的哲学家的品质早就被一致公认，他在法国的社交范围是广阔的。 在很长时间内，维尔日纳伯爵不准译成法文的《美国宪法》在法国公布；但即使如此，他还是不得不对舆论让步，知趣地允许把他曾经抵制过的东西发表出来。《美国宪法》之于自由，正如语法之于语言；它们规定各种词类，并且实际上把词类造成句子。拉法叶特侯爵的特殊地位是一连串事件中的另一件。他曾在美国国会一个委员会领导下当过军官，为美国效过劳，由于交游广阔，同美国军政界关系友好密切。他讲这个国家的话，参与讨论美国政府的各项策政，而且在历次选举中都是一位深受欢迎的朋友。当战争结束时，由于法国官兵回国，一支增强自由事业的庞大力量遍及法国全境。实践知识于是同理论结合了起来；就缺机会使它真正实现。严格说来，人不能为自己的目的创造时势，但是时势一旦出现，他总是能抓住时势加以利用，法国的情况就是如此。 内克先生是1781年5月去职的，后来由于财政管理不善，特别是在哥洛纳先生施政期间挥霍无度，法国岁入虽达二千四百万镑，仍不敷支出，这并非由于收入减少，而是由于开支增加；而这就是这个国家爆发一场革命的条件。英国首相皮特先生经常在他的预算案中提到法国的财政状况，但并不了解这个问题。倘若当年法国议会登记新的征税法令也象英国国会予以批准那样干脆，败政本来就不会混乱，也不会发生什么革命了，但等我讲下去，这一点自会明白的。 这里有必要说明一下以前法国敏府是怎样征税的。国王或毋宁说是宫廷或内阁以国王名义任意制定征税法令，送交议会登记；因为在议会予以登记之前这些法令是无效的。对于议会在这方面的权限问题，宫廷和议会之间一直有争执。宫廷坚决主张议会的权力只限于对征税表示异议或提出反对理由，而自己则保有断定所提理由是否充分的权力，结果官廷就可以要末自行撤消法令，要末行使权力勒令议会予以登记。议会方面则坚持不但有权表示异议，而且有权拒绝登记；据此，议会总是得到国民的支持。 还是回到我讲述的事情上来吧！当时哥洛纳先生需要钱。他知道议会对于开征新税的强硬立场，就很巧妙地设法或则用比较婉转的方式而不用高压手段去接触议会，或则用策略绕过议会；为此，他袭用故伎：从各省召集一批人，称为“名人会议”，于1787年开会，这些人的使命是向议会提议征收新税，或者自己来行使议会的职权。1617年就召开过这样一次会议。 我们既然把这件事看作是实际上走向革命的第一步，就不妨来谈一些它的细节。名人会议在一些地方曾被误认为是三级会议，其实完全是另一回事。 三级会议总是由选举产生的，名人会议的成员则全部由国王提名，共一百四十人。但是由于哥洛纳先生不能操纵这个会议的多数，他非常巧妙地将他们加以安排，使一百四十人中只要有四十四人就成为多数；为此，他把他们分成七个委员会，每个委员会二十人。每一个一般性问题不是由人的多数来决定，而是由委员会的多数来决定；由于在一个委员会中，十一票就成为多数，而四个委员会则是七个委员会中的多数，哥洛纳先生乃有充分理由认定，既然四十四人就可以决定任何一般性问题，他的得票数就稳占上风。但是他的算盘打错了，结果自己也垮台了。 当时，拉法叶特侯爵在第二委员会，达多亚伯爵是该委员会主席。既然目的是解决钱的问题，会上自然把有关钱的一切情况都提了出来。拉法叶特侯爵发言指责哥洛纳背着国王出售王室土地达二百万利弗。达多亚伯爵问侯爵可否把这项指责写成书面（这好象是在恐吓，因为当时巴士底狱还存在）。 侯爵回答说可以。达多亚伯爵没有硬要，而是从国王那里带来口信叫他这样做。拉法叶特侯爵就把他的指责写成书面送交国王，并负责予以证实。此事以后，没有再提，但哥洛纳旋即被国王免职，逐往英国。 由于在美国的亲身经历，拉法叶特侯爵在民政方面比当对名人会议的大多数成员都来得熟悉，所以，主要的工作大多由他负责。那些主张制订宪法的人打算在税收问题上同宫廷较量，有些人公开亮出了他们的目标。达多亚伯爵同拉法叶特侯爵经常在各种问题上发生争执。关于已经产生的欠款问题，拉法叶特侯爵主张通过使开支适应收入而不是收入适应开支的办法加以解决；作为改革的对策，他主张取消巴士底狱和全部国立监狱（因为这些机构花费浩大），同时禁发密诏①，但是这些事情当时未受重视，至于密诏，极大多数名人似乎还是赞成的。 关于给国库提供新的税收问题，会议拒绝受理，一致认为他们没有权力。 在一次辩论这个问题时，拉法叶特侯爵说，靠征税筹款只能由一个人民自由选举出来的、代表人民的国民议会进行。达多亚伯爵问道，你指的是三级会议么？拉法叶特侯爵回答说是。达多亚伯爵说，你愿把你说的话签字呈交国王吗？拉法叶特侯爵答称他不但愿意这样做，而且还要更进一步，并说有效的方法是使国王同意制订一部宪法。 用名人会议代替议会的计划失败了，又冒出了另一个由会议提出法案的计划。关于这个问题，会议同意提两种新税交议会登记：一种是印花税，另一种是领地税或类似土地税。两种新税估计每年约五百万镑。现在，我们应当转而淡谈议会，因为事情又移交给他们去负责了。 图鲁兹大主教（以前是桑斯大主教，现为红衣主教）在哥洛纳撤职后不久，被任命掌管财政，后又被任命为首相，这个官职在法国是不常设的。不设这个职位时，各主要部门的首脑直接同国王一起处理公务。设首相时，他们就光同首相一起办公。自舒赛尔公爵以来，这位大主教掌握的国家权力比任何一个大臣更大，人民对他很有好感。但是由于一些未经说明原因的行为，他滥用职权，专断独行，终于失宠，降为红衣主教。 名人会议散场后，财政大臣就把会议提出的两项新税法送交议会登记。 这两项法案当然首先送到了巴黎议会，但议会答称，按当时国民所负担的这样一种财政收入来说，除非为了减税，就不应再提到税这个字眼，并将两项法案都扔了出去。 ①议会拒绝登记后，就被召往凡尔赛官，在那里，国王按惯例举行了旧政府所谓的“御前会议”，于是两项法案就如第一七一至一七二页所叙述的那样以国家命令当着议会予以登记。 此后，议会立即返回巴黎，按常例重行开会，并命令取消登记，宣告在凡尔赛所做的一切均属非法。于是，国王下密诏，把全体议员流放特罗伊；但由于他们在流放中照样坚强不屈，而报复行为又不能代替新税，因此，不久又把他们召回巴黎。 于是将新税法案再次提交议会，并由达多亚伯爵充当国王代表。为此，这位伯爵在大队人马簇拥下从凡尔赛来到巴黎，议会被集合起来欢迎他。但是，排场和炫耀在法国已不起作用；无论他来时有多么重要的想法，只能怀着屈辱和失望回去。当他下了马车登上议会大厦台级时，大批群众聚在一起议论纷纷说，“这就是达多亚先生，他要我们拿出更多钱让他去花费。”这种露骨的非难使他害怕，他的卫队长于是发出准备战斗的口令。口令声那么响，传遍了议会的通道，秩序顿时大乱。当时，我正站在他必须通过的一个套间里，不禁感到一个不受尊重的人处境是多么倒霉。 他力图用大话来打动议会，一开始就盛气凌人他说：“国王，我们的主人和上帝”。议会态度非常冷淡，还是拒不登记新税法，这次会见就这样结束了。 ①：皇帝密诏，据此可以不经审讯而将人逮捕入狱。 - translator ①当英国首相皮特先生在英国国会再次提到法国的财政时，他要是能以此作为范例加以注意就好了。 --author 此后，发生了一个新问题，即在征税问题上，宫廷与议会经过多次争论，巴黎议会终于宣布，尽管为了方便起见，向来由议会登记征税法案，但其权利只属于三级会议；因此，议会不再适于继续辩论它无权去做的事。此后，国王亲临巴黎，同议会开会，会议从早晨十点一直举行到晚上六点左右，国王并以仿佛未同内阁商量过而是出于他本人意图的口吻，向议会保证：三级会议应当召开。 可是，嗣后，一件其动机同过去一切完全不同的事发生了。首相和内阁反对召开三级会议。他们深知，如果召集三级会议，他们自己必然垮台；由于国王并未指定何时召开会议，他们就想出一个意在逃避三级会议而表面上却并不表示反对的办法。 为此，宫廷自行着手组织一个机构。这项工作主要出于掌玺大臣拉姆阿琼先生之手，此人后来开枪自杀。这个新的安排在于建立一个名为全朝会议的机构，这个机构拥有政府必要时可以利用的一切权力。朝会人选由国王提名。国王放弃有争议的征税权一个新的刑法与诉讼法代替旧的法规。这个法典在许多方面的原则要比政府以往一直据以统治的原则强得多；至于全朝会议则不过是用以实施专制主义的一个手段，只是表面上看不出由专制主义直接行事罢了。 内阁对于这个新计谋抱有很大期望。全朝会议的人选已经提出；由于有必要装璜门面，国内许多知名人士都被罗致进去。会议定于1788 年5 月日召开，但在两个方面受到反对，一是原则方面，一是形式方面。 原则方面是，政府无权改变自己，如果承认这种做法，就会形成一种原则，并成为今后政府企图作任何改变的先例；改变政府的权利是国民的权利，而不是政府的权利。形式方面则认为全朝会议不过是一种扩大的内阁而已。 当时的罗歇福科特、卢森堡、诺爱勒司和其他许多公爵都拒绝接受提名，并竭力反对整个计划。当建立这个新朝会的法案送到议会去登记并付诸实施时，也遭到抵制。巴黎议会不但加以拒绝，并否认这种权力；于是，议会与内阁之间的冲突空前激烈地重新爆发。当议会正在开会讨论这个问题时，政府派军队包围议会，断绝交通。议员们从外面送进床铺和粮食，就象居住在被围的城堡里；由于这样做不顶用，就命令指挥官进入议会逮捕议员。指挥官执行了命令，几个主要议员分别被投进监狱。与此同时，从布列塔尼省来了一个代表团，表示反对建立全朝会议，这些人也被大主教投入巴士底狱。 但是国民的意志不可战胜，它充分意识到自己拒绝增税的立场是坚强有力的，所以坚持沉着抵抗，这就有效地推翻了当时蓄意反对国民的一切阴谋。 全朝会议的计谋终于破产，首相随即去职，内克先生又被复职。 试图建立全朝会议对这个国家产生了它本身不曾料到的影响。这是一种新式政府，它不知不觉把旧式政府革除，并且粉碎旧政府自古以来的富于迷信色彩的权威，这是政府推翻政府，由于努力创造一个新政府，旧政府就此崩溃。 这个计划的失败使召开三级会议的问题重新提了出来，这就引起了一连串新的政治事件。三级会议并没有固定的召开方式，实在只不过是从当时所称教士、贵族和平民中选出一个代表团；但他们的人数或比例并不始终如一。 只是在特殊情况下才把这些人召集起来，最近一次是在1614年；那时他们的人数比例是均等的，大家按等级投票。 年的方式不论对当时政府的需要或国民的需要都不符合，这一点是逃不出内克先生的敏锐眼光的。在当时的形势下，要对任何问题取得一致意见都只会争论不休。对特权和豁免权的辩论会没完没了地进行下去，在这些辩论中，不论是政府的需要或国民对宪法的希望都会被置之脑后。可是，内克先生不顾自己贸然作出决定，就再次决定召集名人会议把这个问题交给他们去讨论。由于这个机构主要是由贵族和高薪教士组成的，他们都乐于来解决问题，因此，他们决定采用1614年的方式。这个决定是违反民意的，也不合宫廷的愿望，因为贵族反对上述双方，一心争夺独立于任何一方的特权。 后来又把这个问题交给议会，议会主张平民的人数应与另外两个等级的人数相等；而且他们应当在一个屋子里开会，并一同投票。最后决定人数为一千二百人；六百人由平民选出（这个数目少于他们按比例应有的人数，如果从全国范围考虑他们的作用和后果的话），三百人由教士选出，其余三百人由贵族选出，至于集会的方式，是在一起开会还是分开来开会，还有投票方式，这些事情也都提到了。①随后的选举不是竞选，而是一次生气勃勃的选举。候选人不是根据地位，而是根据原则。在巴黎成立了许多社团，全国普遍建立了通信和函授组织，以启发人民向他们阐明国民政府的原则；选举进行得井然有序，连骚乱的谣言也没有引起。 三级会议原定1789年4月在凡尔赛召开，但直到五月间才举行。他们分别在三个会议室里开会，或者不如说教士和贵族各自退到一个会议室去开会。大多数贵族要求取得他们所谓的单独投票特权以及用这种方式表示同意或不同意：许多主教和高级教士也根据他们的等级要求同样的特权。 第三等级（当时是这样称呼的）不承认这些人为的等级和人为的特权；他们对这一点不但态度坚决，而且有些不屑一顾。他们开始把贵族看作是从腐朽的社会中滋长出来的霉菌，甚至不能算作社会的一部分，而且从贵族拥护密诏的倾向和其他种种例子来看，显然只能由国民来制订宪法。 就这个问题经过很多争论之后，第三等级或平民（当时是这样称呼他们的），根据长老专门提出的动仪宣布他们自己为“国民代表”；其他两个等级只能看作是社团代表，只有以国民身分同国民代表一道开会时才具有充分的发言权。”此举取消了三级会议这个天生的弱点之外，表明他对情况一点不了解。从已有的经验来看，背离是必要的，因为那是一种坏的传统做法。1614年的三级会议是在路易十三处于少数的情况下，在内战开始对召开的；但是，由于用等级来安排引起冲突，会议的目的本来是平息混乱，结果反而增加了混乱。那位在谁都没料到法国会发生革命之前写下《年阁的阴谋诡计》一书的作者，在谈到1614年的三级会议时说道：“他们止民众提心吊胆了五个月；从当时所提出的各种问题以及提出问题的激烈程度来看，这些大人物更多是为了满足他们的特殊激情，而不是为国民谋取利益；于是全部时间就在争吵、礼节和排场中白白浪费了”。参见《内阁的阴谋诡计》第卷，第329页。——作者 形式，改建成现有的形式，即国民议会的形式