As he had been long married without children, he was allowed to adopt the children or grandchildren of his bro thers, when they arrived at the age of eighteen, provided he had no legitimate children. On the failure of both le gitimate and adopted heirs, the crown was to be enjoyed by his eldest brother Joseph, and his descendants ; and, failing them, by his next brother, and his descendants, Ste. 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, which was begun for the express purpose of establishing a free government,—which, shortly after its commencement, destroyed the king and the mo narchy, and during which the very suspicion of being at tached to the royal cause exposed the suspected party to certain death, terminated in the establishment of a military despotism.
We have hitherto deferred entering into a developement and explanation of the causes which produced either di rectly or indirectly, or generally or partially, this revolu tion, as well as of the causes to which we ought to ascribe the rapid and total change in the nation, from an apparent ly 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 unparal leled 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 a're 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 now consider them in their or der.
I. With respect to the causes which produced the French revolution, either directly or indirectly, either par tially or generally, in France, it may be proper to premise some general remarks on the causes which alter the cha racter or fate of nations. Before philosophy had lent her aid to the lessons of experience and observation, so as to draw from them their legitimate consequences, it was sup posed that the fate of a nation depended on the character and conduct of the leading individual or individuals in it ; and when that character and conduct were pointed out and explained, it was taken for granted, that the particular cir cumstances in the national history, which had attracted atten tion from their extraordinary nature, were also sufficiently ac counted for. But philosophy taught, that no individual can
operate changes, or produce effects of an extraordinary na ture, in any country, unless he act on materials suited to his purpose ; and that, as he must have been formed by the pre vailing spirit and habits of the nation on which he is suppo sed to operate, the very existence of such a character as his, is a proof that the nation was towards that change, which was solely attributed to the influence of his character and efforts. We must, however, guard against going into the extreme of this opinion ; for there can be no doubt, that though favourable circumatances must pre-exist, be fore any individual can radically affect the character, or pro duce any great change in the fate, of a nation, yet, on the other hand, something ought to be ascribed to the influence of individual character. Perhaps a more striking proof of this cannot be exhibited, than what the history of Prussia affords us : During the reign of Frederic the Great, this kingdom stood high in the rank of nations in a military point of view. That the Prussians possessed the requisites for making good soldiers, is admitted ; but it may surely be questioned, whether, if Frederic the Great had not been the character he was, Prussia would -have gained the pre eminence she did in warfare, or the advantays resulting from that pre-eminence. That this opinion is correct, the history of Prussia, after the death of this king, sufficiently proves : another sovereign, of a different character, or, more properly speaking, of different talents and habits, ascended the throne, and Prussia immediately stink in the scale of nations. Perhaps the legitimate conclusion to be drawn, is, that in nations highly civilized and enlightened, in which almost every individual has an independent poli tical existence, and regards himself as a component part of the government, individuals can do little or nothing except through the instrumentality of the nation, by conforming to its character, and employing its prejudices and feelings in the schemes which they are desirous to carry into exe cution; whereas in a nation, rude, ignorant, and barbarous, in which the great mass of the nation have no conception that they have any right to interfere in the conduct of their governors, events are much more, though still not by any means entirely, under the influence and direction of .