CARNOT
have met only the slightest opposition. The citadel of liberty was confided to him; he swore to defend it; and, holding his promise, he should have fulfilled the desire of the nation which judged him alone capable of solving the great problem of public liberty in its vast extent. He might have covered himself with incomparable glory. Instead of that, what is being done to-day? They propose to make over to him the absolute and hereditary property of a great power of which he was made the administrator. Is this the real desire and to the real interest of the first consul himself? I do not believe it.
It is true the State was falling into a state of dissolution, and that absolutism pulled it from the edge of the abyss. But what do we conclude from that? What all the world knows — that political bodies are subject to affections which can be cured only by violent remedies; that sometimes a dictator for a moment is necessary to save liberty. The Romans, who were so jealous of it, recognized the necessity of this supreme power at intervals. But because a violent remedy has saved a patient, must there be a daily administration of violent remedies? Fabius, Cincinnatus, Camillus saved Rome by the exercise of absolute power, but they relinquished this power as soon as practicable; they would have killed Rome had they continued to wield it. Caesar was the first who desired to keep this power. He became its victim, and liberty was lost for futurity. Thus everything that has
184
