按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
inspires them with a certain contempt for the judgment of the multitude。 To this it may be added that they naturally constitute a body； not by any previous understanding； or by an agreement which directs them to a common end； but the analogy of their studies and the uniformity of their proceedings connect their minds together； as much as a common interest could combine their endeavors。
A portion of the tastes and of the habits of the aristocracy may consequently be discovered in the characters of men in the profession of the law。 They participate in the same instinctive love of order and of formalities； and they entertain the same repugnance to the actions of the multitude； and the same secret contempt of the government of the people。 I do not mean to say that the natural propensities of lawyers are sufficiently strong to sway them irresistibly； for they； like most other men； are governed by their private interests and the advantages of the moment。
In a state of society in which the members of the legal profession are prevented from holding that rank in the political world which they enjoy in private life； we may rest assured that they will be the foremost agents of revolution。 But it must then be inquired whether the cause which induces them to innovate and to destroy is accidental； or whether it belongs to some lasting purpose which they entertain。 It is true that lawyers mainly contributed to the overthrow of the French monarchy in 1789； but it remains to be seen whether they acted thus because they had studied the laws； or because they were prohibited from co…operating in the work of legislation。
Five hundred years ago the English nobles headed the people； and spoke in its name； at the present time the aristocracy supports the throne； and defends the royal prerogative。 But aristocracy has； notwithstanding this； its peculiar instincts and propensities。 We must be careful not to confound isolated members of a body with the body itself。 In all free governments； of whatsoever form they may be； members of the legal profession will be found at the head of all parties。 The same remark is also applicable to the aristocracy； for almost all the democratic convulsions which have agitated the world have been directed by nobles。
A privileged body can never satisfy the ambition of all its members； it has always more talents and more passions to content and to employ than it can find places； so that a considerable number of individuals are usually to be met with who are inclined to attack those very privileges which they find it impossible to turn to their own account。
I do not； then； assert that all the members of the legal profession are at all times the friends of order and the opponents of innovation； but merely that most of them usually are so。 In a community in which lawyers are allowed to occupy； without opposition； that high station which naturally belongs to them； their general spirit will be eminently conservative and anti…democratic。 When an aristocracy excludes the leaders of that profession from its ranks； it excites enemies which are the more formidable to its security as they are independent of the nobility by their industrious pursuits； and they feel themselves to be its equal in point of intelligence； although they enjoy less opulence and less power。 But whenever an aristocracy consents to impart some of its privileges to these same individuals； the two classes coalesce very readily； and assume； as it were； the consistency of a single order of family interests。
I am； in like manner； inclined to believe that a monarch will always be able to convert legal practitioners into the most serviceable instruments of his authority。 There is a far greater affinity between this class of individuals and the executive power than there is between them and the people； just as there is a greater natural affinity between the nobles and the monarch than between the nobles and the people； although the higher orders of society have occasionally resisted the prerogative of the Crown in concert with the lower classes。
Lawyers are attached to public order beyond every other consideration； and the best security of public order is authority。 It must not be forgotten that； if they prize the free institutions of their country much； they nevertheless value the legality of those institutions far more： they are less afraid of tyranny than of arbitrary power； and provided that the legislature take upon itself to deprive men of their independence； they are not dissatisfied。
I am therefore convinced that the prince who； in presence of an encroaching democracy； should endeavor to impair the judicial authority in his dominions； and to diminish the political influence of lawyers； would commit a great mistake。 He would let slip the substance of authority to grasp at the shadow。 He would act more wisely in introducing men connected with the law into the government； and if he entrusted them with the conduct of a despotic power； bearing some marks of violence； that power would most likely assume the external features of justice and of legality in their hands。
The government of democracy is favorable to the political power of lawyers； for when the wealthy； the noble； and the prince are excluded from the government； they are sure to occupy the highest stations； in their own right； as it were； since they are the only men of information and sagacity； beyond the sphere of the people； who can be the object of the popular choice。 If； then； they are led by their tastes to combine with the aristocracy and to support the Crown； they are naturally brought into contact with the people by their interests。 They like the government of democracy； without participating in its propensities and without imitating its weaknesses； whence they derive a twofold authority； from it and over it。 The people in democratic states does not mistrust the members of the legal profession； because it is well known that they are interested in
serving the popular cause； and it listens to them without irritation； because it does not attribute to them any sinister designs。 The object of lawyers is not； indeed； to overthrow the institutions of democracy； but they constantly endeavor to give it an impulse which diverts it from its real tendency； by means which are foreign to its nature。 Lawyers belong to the people by birth and interest； to the aristocracy by habit and by taste； and they may be looked upon as the natural bond and connecting link of the two great classes of society。
The profession of the law is the only aristocratic element which can be amalgamated without violence with the natural elements of democracy； and which can be advantageously and permanently combined with them。 I am not unacquainted with the defects which are inherent in the character of that body of men； but without this admixture of lawyer…like sobriety with the democratic principle； I question whether democratic institutions could long be maintained； and I cannot believe that a republic could subsist at the present time if the influence of lawyers in public business did not increase in proportion to the power of the people。
This aristocratic character； which I hold to