It would be impossible, therefore, to introduce into society a greater change and a greater evil than this—­the conversion of the law into an instrument of plunder.

What would be the consequences of such a perversion?  It would require volumes to describe them all.  We must content ourselves with pointing out the most striking.

In the first place, it would efface from everybody’s conscience the distinction between justice and injustice.

No society can exist unless the laws are respected to a certain degree, but the safest way to make them respected is to make them respectable.  When law and morality are in contradiction to each other, the citizen finds himself in the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense, or of losing his respect for the law—­two evils of equal magnitude, between which it would be difficult to choose.

It is so much in the nature of law to support justice, that in the minds of the masses they are one and the same.  There is in all of us a strong disposition to regard what is lawful as legitimate, so much so, that many falsely derive all justice from law.  It is sufficient, then, for the law to order and sanction plunder, that it may appear to many consciences just and sacred.  Slavery, protection, and monopoly find defenders, not only in those who profit by them, but in those who suffer by them.  If you suggest a doubt as to the morality of these institutions, it is said directly—­“You are a dangerous innovator, a utopian, a theorist, a despiser of the laws; you would shake the basis upon which society rests.”

If you lecture upon morality, or political economy, official bodies will be found to make this request to the Government:—­

“That henceforth science be taught not only with sole reference to free exchange (to liberty, property, and justice), as has been the case up to the present time, but also, and especially, with reference to the facts and legislation (contrary to liberty, property, and justice) which regulate French industry.

“That, in public pulpits salaried by the treasury, the professor abstain rigorously from endangering in the slightest degree the respect due to the laws now in force."[7]

So that if a law exists which sanctions slavery or monopoly, oppression or plunder, in any form whatever, it must not even be mentioned—­for how can it be mentioned without damaging the respect which it inspires?  Still further, morality and political economy must be taught in connexion with this law—­that is, under the supposition that it must be just, only because it is law.

Another effect of this deplorable perversion of the law is, that it gives to human passions and to political struggles, and, in general, to politics, properly so called, an exaggerated preponderance.

I could prove this assertion in a thousand ways.  But I shall confine myself, by way of illustration, to bringing it to bear upon a subject which has of late occupied everybody’s mind—­universal suffrage.