Another collateral conclusion marks Buckle's position.As a historian of political progress he is constantly dwelling upon the importance of individual action.The tolerant policy of Richelieu,the despotic system of Louis XIV,and so forth,are the great aids or impediments to human progress.How is this reconcilable with the doctrines that individual action is nothing and the spontaneous growth of knowledge everything?In answer we are referred to the great general causes,or to the protective spirit or the spirit of the age,which really govern the whole process in spite of superficial and transitory causes.What precisely is meant by these abstractions?To what does the protective spirit in politics owe its malign persistence?What,in short,is the source and true nature of the power of government?The answer is,that to Suckle,as to the Utilitarians,government represents a kind of external force;something imposed upon the people from without;a 'sovereign,'in Austin's sense,who can never originate or impel,though he can coerce and suppress.He chooses the history of England for his subject,as he tells us,because England has been 'less affected than any other country by the two main sources of interference,namely,the authority of government and the influence of foreigners.'(53)Both are treated as 'interferences'from without,which distort the natural development.English history is interesting not because its political constitution is a most characteristic outgrowth of its social state,but because all government is simply an interference,and in England has had a minimum influence.Consistently with this,he attacks the opinion that progress has ever been due to government.Government is,of course,necessary to punish crime and prevent anarchy;(54)but even its successful efforts are 'altogether negative';and,even where its intentions have been good,it has been generally injurious.Briefly,government is powerful for evil,and the one principle is that rulers should have a 'very little'power and exercise it 'very sparingly.'(55)At times he is inclined to deny all influence to government.Speaking of Scotland,he remarks that though bad government can be extremely injurious for a time,it can 'produce no permanent mischief.'(56)'So long as the people are sound,'he says,'there is life and will be reaction.But if the people are unsound all hope is gone and the nation perishes.'What,then,makes the people 'sound'?Is not this a tacit admission of the importance of the moral factor?
Has not the religion of a nation some influence,and sometimes perhaps an influence for good,upon its morality?Puritanism in Scotland was associated with gross superstition;was it not also an expression of the moral convictions which preserved the 'soundness'of the race?Catholicism in Spain is still,according to Buckle,associated with a high moral standard;but this has 'availed the Spaniards'nothing,(57)because it has suppressed intellectual progress.It has surely been of some use if it has preserved their virtue.But,in any case,what is the explanation of the power of government which can thus destroy the 'soundness'or morality and ruin the fortunes of a people?Buckle's theory might apply to the case of a nation conquered by a foreign tyrant.He denounces conquerors in the old tone as pests and destroyers of men,who pass their whole lives in increasing human misery.(58)Yet conquest has been a factor in the development of all nations,and Buckle himself argues that the Norman conquest was an essential step in establishing the liberties of Englishmen.(59)It is still more difficult to suppose that a government which is the growth of a people's own requirements can be simply mischievous.Without trying to solve such puzzles,we may say that the whole doctrine seems to imply a misconception of the relations between the political and the social and moral constitution of a nation.No satisfactory theory can be formed,when it is assumed that the function of government is simply to keep the peace instead of inquiring historically what functions it has actually discharged.When Buckle regards government like the 'physical laws'as the cause of pure mischief,he ceases to be scientific and becomes after a fashion a moralist,denouncing instead of explaining.
The connection of this with the do-nothing doctrine which Buckle accepts in its fullest form is obvious.The less government the better is the natural formula for a disciple of Adam Smith.What is here important is the connection of the doctrine with Buckle's first principles.The political order cannot be thus treated as if it were an independent power impinging from without upon a natural order;it is a product of the whole organism,and to denounce it as simply bad is really meaningless.It is part of the essential structure,and therefore we cannot properly abstract from the other parts of the system.
