Men and thought in modern history . fromthe principles recognised by a party man; they belong tothe sphere of state policy, not of party politics.—Princevon Billow. Political questions are question of power, was Bis-marcks fixed principle, and he was never wanting in fidelityto it. All Bismarcks impatience with theory, all his con-tempt for the man of thought and contemplation, and allhis rough-riding over some of the most treasured traditionsof political and economic thought were but different expres-sions of the same absorbing belief in the efficacy of resoluteaction.—W. H. Dawson. This wond
Men and thought in modern history . fromthe principles recognised by a party man; they belong tothe sphere of state policy, not of party politics.—Princevon Billow. Political questions are question of power, was Bis-marcks fixed principle, and he was never wanting in fidelityto it. All Bismarcks impatience with theory, all his con-tempt for the man of thought and contemplation, and allhis rough-riding over some of the most treasured traditionsof political and economic thought were but different expres-sions of the same absorbing belief in the efficacy of resoluteaction.—W. H. Dawson. This wonderful Kultur, which people blind to its mean-ing have talked so much about, does not mean civilisationin the least. Civilisation consists of delicacy and gentle-ness of behaviour, and refinement of mind. Kultur impliesstate direction, to the end that man and the people shallbe assimilated into it, incorporated within it, and shapedto serve its ends, that they may share in the accomplish-ment of its purpose.—Maurice GAMBETTA. [Page 216 Chapter AND REPUBLICANISM. FRANCE between 1815 and 1875 was continually en-gaged in jumping out of the frying pan into thefire and back again. After the fall of the Napo-leonic Empire, the Bourbon dynasty, dethroned atthe Revolution, was restored to power, and commenced bypromises of constitutional rule. Louis XVIII. (1815-1824) observed fairly well the charter which he publishedat his accession, but his brother Charles X. (1824-1830),allowed himself to be impelled by the aristocratic andclerical party into a reversion to sovereignty based uponprinciples such as held sway before the great Duke of Wellington, perceiving that this way lay dis-aster, declared that there is no such thing as politicalexperience; with the warning of James II. before him,Charles X. was setting up a government by priests, throughpriests, for priests. The revolution of 1830 drove the lastof the legitimate line into exile, and Ki
Size: 1256px × 1990px
Photo credit: © The Reading Room / Alamy / Afripics
License: Licensed
Model Released: No
Keywords: ., boo, bookcentury1900, bookdecade1920, booksubjectpoliticalscience
