Page:History of Freedom.djvu/638

 594

ESSAYS ON LIBERTY

the teacher of Savigny, and asserts that there could never be a doubt as to the liberalism of Chateaubriand. There was none after his expulsion from office; but there was much reason for doubting in 18 I 5, when he entreated the king to set bounds to his mercy; in I 8 19, when he was contributing to the Conservateur ' and in 1823, when he executed the mandate of the absolute monarchs against the Spanish constitution. His zeal for legitimacy ,vas at all tilnes qualified with liberal elements, but they never became consistent or acquired the mastery until 182 4. r" De Maistre and Savigny covered the same ground at one point; they both subjected the future to the past. This could serve as an argument for absolutism and theocracy, and on that account was lovely in the eyes of De Maistre. If it had been an argument the other way he would have cast it off. Savigny had no such ulterior purpose. His doctrine, that the living are not their own masters, could serve either cause. He rejected a mechanical fixity, and held that \vhatever has been made by process of growth shall continue to grow and suffer modification. His theory of continuity has this significance in political science, that it supplied a basis for conservatism apart from absolutism and compatible with freedom. And, as he believed that law depends on national tradition and character, he became indirectly and through friends a founder of the theory of nationality. The one writer whom Dr. Flint refuses to criticise, because he too nearly agrees with him, is Renouvier. Taking this avowal in conjunction with two or three indis- cretions on other pages, we can make a guess, not at the system itself, which is to console us for so much deviation, but at its tendency and spirit The fundamental article is belief in divine government. As Kant beheld God in the firmament of heaven, so too we can see him in history on earth. Unless a man is determined to be an atheist, he must acknowledge that the experience of mankind is a decisive proof in favour of religion. As providence is not absolute, but reigns over men destined to freedom, its method is manifested in the law of progress. Here, how-