"Vestigia praedecessorum suorum， divorum imperatorum， magni Constantini scilicet et Justiniani et Valentini， . . . sacras eorum leges， . . . divina oracula. . . . Quodcumque imperator constituerit， vel cognoscens decreverit， vel edicto praeceperit， legem esse constat." - Frederick II.： "Princeps legibus solutus est." - Louis of Bavaria： "Nos qui sumus supra jus."[14] Guyot， ibid.， article Régales. "The great 'régales，' majora regalia， are those which belong to the King， jure singulari et proprio， and which are incommunicable to another， considering that they cannot be divorced from the scepter， being the attributes of sovereignty， such as . . . the making of laws， the interpretation or change of these， the last appeal from the decisions of magistrates， the creation of offices， the declaration of war or of peace， . . . the coining of money， the augmentation of titles or of values， the imposition of taxes on the subjects， . . . the exemption of certain persons from these， the award of pardon for crimes， . . . the creation of nobles， the foundation of universities， . . . the assembling of the états-généraux or provinciaux， etc." - Bossuet， "Politique tirée de l'écriture sainte"： The entire state exists in the person of the prince." - Louis XIV.， "？uvres，" I.， 50 (to his son)： "You should be aware that kings can naturally dispose fully and freely of all possessions belonging as well to persons of the church as to laymen， to make use of at all times with wise economy， that is to say， according to the general requirements of their government." - Sorel， "L'Europe et la Révolution fran？aise，" I.， 231 (Letter of the "intendant" Foucault)： "It is an illusion， which cannot proceed from anything but blind preoccupation， that of making any distinction between obligations of conscience and the obedience which is due to the King."[15] "The Ancient Régime，" p.9 and following pages. - "Correspondance de Mirabeau et du Comte de le Marck，" II.， 74 (Note by Mirabeau， July 3， 1790)： "Previous to the present revolution， royal authority was incomplete： the king was compelled to humor his nobles， to treat with the parliaments，， to be prodigal of favors to the court."[16] "The Revolution，" III.， p.318. (Laff.II. p. 237-238). - " The Ancient Régime，" p. 10 (Laff. I. 25n.) Speech by the Chancellor Séguier， 1775： "Our kings have themselves declared that they are fortunately powerless to attack property."[17] Rousseau's text in the "Contrat Social." - On the meaning and effect of this principle cf "The Revolution，" I.， 217 and following pages， and III.， book VI.， ch. I. Laff. 182-186 et II. 47 to 74).
[18] The opinion， or rather the resignation which confers omnipotence on the central power， goes back to the second half of the fifteenth century， after the Hundred Years' war， and is due to that war； the omnipotence of the king was then the only refuge against the English invaders， and the ravages of the écorcheurs. - Cf. Fortescue， "In leges Angli？，" and" "The Difference between an Absolute and a Limited Monarchy" (end of the fifteenth century)， on the difference at this date between the English and the French government. - The same decision is found in the dispatches of the Venetian ambassadors of this date： "In France everything is based on the will of the king.
Nobody， whatever might be his conscientious scruples， would dare express an opinion opposed to his. The French respect their king to such an extent that they would not only sacrifice their property for him， but again their souls." (Janssen， "L'Allemagne à la fin du moyen age. I. 484.) - As to the passage of the monarchical to the democratic idea， we see it plainly in the following quotations from Restif de la Bretonne： "I entertained no doubt that the king could legally oblige any man to give me his wife or his daughter， and everybody in my village (Sacy in Burgundy) thought so too." ("Monsieur Nicolas，" I.， 443.) - In relation to the September massacres： "No， I do not pity them， those fanatical priests. . . When a community or its majority wants anything， it is right. The minority is always culpable， even when right morally. Common sense is that is needed to appreciate that truth. It is indisputable that the nation has the power to sacrifice even an innocent person." ("Nuits de Paris，" XVth， p.377.)[19] "The Revolution，" III.， 393. (Laff. II. p. 291)[20] "Contrat Social，" book 1st， ch. III.： "It is accordingly essential that， for the enunciation of the general will， no special organization should exist in the State， and that the opinion of each citizen should accord with that. Such was the unique and sublime law of the great Lycurgus."[21] "The Revolution，" I.， 170. (Laff. I. 433.)[22] Ibid.， II.， 93； III.， 78-82. (Laff. I. p. 632 and II. pp. 65-68.)[23] "Correspondance de Mirabeau et du Comte de la Marck，"II.， 74(Letter of Mirabeau to the King， July 3， 1790)： "Compare the new state of things with the ancient régime. . . . One portion of the acts of the national assembly (and that the largest) is evidently favorable to monarchical government. Is it to have nothing， then， to have no parliaments， no provincial governments， no privileged classes， no clerical bodies， no nobility？ The idea of forming one body of citizens would have pleased Richelieu： this equalized surface facilitates the exercise of power. Many years of absolute rule could not have done so much for royal authority as this one year of revolution." - Sainte-Beuve， "Port-Royal，" V.， 25 (M. Harlay conversing with the supérieure of Port-Royal)： "People are constantly talking about Port-Royal， about these Port-Royal gentlemen： the King dislikes whatever excites talk.
