that the conditions of France from 1790 to 1800 were altogether
hostile to the development of free institutions. The fierce feuds at
home, the greed and the class jealousies awakened by confiscation, the
blasts of war and the blight of bankruptcy, would have severely tested
the firmest of local institutions; they were certain to wither so
delicate an organism as an absolute democracy, which requires peace,
prosperity, and infinite patience for its development. Because France
then came to despair of her local self-government, it did not follow
that she would fail after Bonaparte's return had restored her prestige
and prosperity. But the national _élan_ forbade any postponement or
compromise; and France forthwith accepted the rule of an able official
hierarchy as a welcome alternative to the haphazard acts of local
busybodies. By many able men the change has been hailed as a proof of
Bonaparte's marvellous discernment of the national character, which,
as they aver, longs for brilliance, order, and strong government,
rather than for the steep and thorny paths of liberty. Certainly there
is much in the modern history of France which supports this opinion.
Yet perhaps these characteristics are due very largely to the master
craftsman, who fashioned France anew when in a state of receptivity,
and thus was able to subject democracy to that force which alone has
been able to tame it--the mighty force of militarism.

* * * * *

The return to a monarchical policy was nowhere more evident than in
the very important negotiations which regulated the relations of
Church and State and produced the _Concordat_ or treaty of peace with
the Roman Catholic Church. But we must first look back at the events
which had reduced the Roman Catholic Church in France to its pitiable
condition.