The Difficult History of Freedom

He Huaihong

Acton (1834-1902) famously said, "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." It has long been known to us, but for some reason his work has rarely been translated. The Cambridge history he started is very familiar to us, and it continues to this day. Just one of the Cambridge histories of China has benefited us a lot. Acton was very learned and insightful, but he wrote little. After his death, people found that almost all of the thousands of books he left behind had been read by him, with notes written on the margins, as well as countless wooden grids containing various materials and index cards. A scholar once flipped through several grids at random. One of them recorded many ancient examples of people's compassion for animals starting from Eulysses' old dog in Homer's epic poem; the other grid was dedicated to collecting all publications of various ethnic groups. The harsh language towards the stepmother in the story.

Recently, I happened to re-read the notes I took while reading his "The History of Freedom and Other Essays" in 1991, and I couldn't help but sigh. Acton wrote: “In every age the progress of liberty has been besieged and besieged by its natural enemies—ignorance and superstition, the desire for conquest and the love of ease, the strong man’s thirst for power and the poor’s thirst for food. It has been difficult... In all ages true friends of liberty have been few and far between, and its successes have always been due to a few, united with others whose aims often differed from their own. Such alliances are always dangerous by giving the adversary a very base to oppose oneself, and when successful the corruption leads to disputes that sometimes turn out to be disastrous."

And mistakes about freedom. concept may cause more damage to freedom than the conflict of interests. The progress of freedom then corresponds to the improvement of knowledge and the improvement of law. Acton's understanding of freedom is to ensure that each person can be protected in doing what he believes to be his duty regardless of the influence of authority, majority, customs and opinions. He said: "The most reliable standard for us to judge whether a country is truly free is the scope of protection that a minority can enjoy. Freedom here can be defined as the basic condition and guarantee of religion." That is to say, freedom is first and foremost the freedom of conscience and belief. In other words, it is what Constant refers to as "modern freedom."

However, in the development of "ancient freedom" that emphasized participation in political rights, there was nothing consistent with "modern freedom", which was especially reflected in the improvement of laws and the decentralization of power. Acton believes that the significance of Solon's legislation is that the upper class has always had legislative and judicial power in the past, and he still let them control it, but he only changed the standard of the upper class from unchanging blood to variable wealth. The poor also had the right to elect administrators from the upper class. Previously, the only resource known to people against political disorder and anarchy was the concentration of power. Solon took on the task of achieving the same effect through decentralization of power. He said that the essence of democracy is to obey no ruler but only the law. No minority or majority should monopolize power. It was the largest class of Athenians who later unified judicial, legislative, and part of the executive power, putting legislators above the law, thus leading to the decline of Athens. The freedom of ancient Rome also experienced the same rise and fall as Athens.

In addition, in the classical literature on freedom, the following elements are still missing - representative government, freedom from slavery, and freedom of conscience. Those who appeal to a higher authority to draw a metaphysical boundary for government have no idea how to make it a reality. Therefore, all Socrates could do to protest against the degenerated democratic tyranny was to die for his beliefs; the Stoics could only advise wise men to avoid politics and keep unwritten laws in their hearts; until Christ Saying "let unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's" brings about the negation of absolutism and the new establishment of freedom.

In Acton’s view, modern freedom is inextricably linked to Christianity. Religious freedom is the starting principle of civil freedom, and the concept that civil freedom is a necessary condition for religious freedom was retained until the 17th century. A discovery of the century. But later the excessive desire for equality made “hopes for freedom come to naught.

"The future is not optimistic, but Acton also told us that if there is reason to be proud of the past, then there is also reason to have hope for the future era, "because the stories of the future are hidden in the past, what has always existed and what will be What appears is the same thing."

Acton: A historian's faith and wisdom

Feng Klee

In today's China, official corruption and government As for the gift of anti-corruption, there may not be many people who have never heard the saying "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." There are probably also many people who know that this statement came from Acton (1834-1902) However, few people know about Acton. In 1887, he wrote this memorable sentence in a letter to Clayton, editor of the British Historical Review. It is a wise saying that is forgotten, but it seems to be a proverb spread in the streets, and people do not care much about its origin. This seems to be because its origin is not very important.

From a certain perspective, this is indeed the case. In his later years, Acton claimed that he had done nothing in his life. Apart from being the first editor of "Cambridge Modern History" and leaving half of his unique historical works to the world, he never wrote anything about Huang Zhongdalu. Therefore, The only collection of his essays we see today, "Lord Acton, Essays on Freedom and Power. The World Publishing Co., New York, 1955", is nothing more than a collection of speeches, manuscripts and some religious articles.

However, if a sentence can be passed down from generation to generation like a folk proverb, it must be because it contains some kind of wisdom. Acton did not just happen to say a wise saying. The fact that he did not use systematic writings to state his thoughts does not mean that he did not have his own systematic opinions. Toynbee once said that Acton was a strange victim of the spirit of the times. Industrial society constantly forced people to explore historical materials and superstitious labor. The division of labor made this researcher of the history of freedom at a loss, and the result was that "one of the greatest minds among modern Western historians" became an editor with wasted talent. Toynbee's words have their own truth. It is unavoidable that he compared his monumental work "Historical Research" with Acton's, but he said that this mind was all harmed by the division of labor, which is not very convincing in history. From the perspective of many people today, the main reason for his achievements was not that the division of labor made him at a loss as to what to do, but his "history to record the truth", which is what Westerners call "read the faith into history" tendency. It was too serious, which prevented him from describing history.

According to Himmelfarber, who wrote the preface to the collection, the greatest thing about Acton is "what he brought to politics." He brought to religion the moral fervor of a prophet and to religion the humane concern of a liberal politician; he brought to both simultaneously the truth that power, whether religious or secular, is depraved, shameless and The power of corruption.” This passage not only perfectly points out the nature of Acton’s intellectual legacy left to us, but also marks its two important sources: Acton’s unwavering Catholic faith and his deep concern for human freedom. . Putting aside the fact that he established a close relationship between the two, which is not easy to understand, modern historiography often takes not being a "moral judge" as a precept that historians must abide by in order to avoid distortion. From this point of view, Acton obviously made a big mistake. Although he once studied under the great German historian Leopold von Ranke, he went against his teacher's teachings and regarded history as "the true testimony of religion" and always insisted on evaluating history morally as a historian's unshirkable responsibility. In a century when religious power has been shattered, he still firmly believes that Christ, who is transcendent above mankind, has not failed, because in his view, God's ruling wisdom is not reflected in the perfection of the world, but in the improvement of the world; Among this kind of improvement, freedom is the most important "moral achievement" achieved by human beings. His broad-minded historical essays insist on finding evidence of the value of faith and freedom in historical facts, showing an authentic "Spring and Autumn Writing Style" atmosphere. When we read it today, we still have what Mr. Qian Zhongshu called " It feels like finding an old thing or meeting an old friend.”

American historian Henry C. Lea alleged that Sir Acton's insistence on judging history based on morality was a great fallacy, and his writings were even ridiculed as "Acton's Encyclical" (borrowing the term "Pope's Encyclical") , of course it’s not surprising.

But to be fair, Acton is not unaware that historical facts are far from moral preaching. Although he believes that "people full of ideals come one after another, reminding people to be careful of tyrants and tyrants, and constantly preaching that divine law is superior to evil rulers", most of them will remind us of Confucianism, especially Mencius; although he said that the revelation of freedom includes In the teachings of God, but contrary to what Coser said about the "men of ideas" who wander in the metaphysical world, he does not believe that its realization comes entirely from transcendental power, but depends on " The confluence and synergy of the various conditions for progressive civilization.” He knew very well that "the practice of destroying the balance of power by gaining advantage in money, land, or numbers is full of history." He often showed a clear understanding of historical experience, which often prevents us from calling him, as someone said, "Wrong in all the details, right in belief." Therefore, Ku Bing's approach of writing as a record of history has somewhat lost its basis.

So, how should we view Acton’s approach to conveying faith in historiography? Perhaps it is more appropriate to say that he is just like an ordinary Christian, "always living with gratitude" and attributing all the blessings we have received or may obtain in life, rather than the happiness that cannot be achieved at all, to God's gifts. 's comments. His sermon-like words when talking about the development of British constitutionalism may be regarded as evidence of this: "The proud characteristics of (the British people) are remarkable and cannot be separated from the background of our history. ... Regardless of foreign countries Neither the clerical spirit of the theologians nor the monarchical preference peculiar to the French theologians left any trace on the authors of the English seminary. Roman law, derived from that declining empire, became the common pillar of despotic power. , but was excluded from England. Canon law was restricted, and the country never accepted the Inquisition, nor the tortures by which the Continental Crown had afterwards created many horrors which our gentry maintained in other countries. There was no method of local self-government. Sectarian divisions led to religious toleration. The confusion of common law taught people that their best defenders were the independence and uniformity of judges. "It is these established facts of English history that enable him to". "Always keep your eyes fixed on the space illuminated by the light of God" and firmly believe that "the light of God that leads us has not been extinguished, and the causes and conditions that have made us far ahead of other free countries have not been exhausted."

Therefore, Acton’s belief is actually a belief that is not divorced from experience and institutional changes. Since "power leads to corruption, absolute power leads to absolute corruption", we should not treat it completely As an assertion derived from the metaphysical theory of human nature, it is better to say that it is a kind of probabilistic knowledge derived from experience, and this is not an original idea at all. It can only be regarded as his response to the ancient Western political thought tradition. It is not only the logical extension of the Christian theory of original sin in politics, but even Aristotle in the pre-Christian world said it long ago in his Politics: "Giving authority to people is tantamount to inviting a wolf into the house, because desire is animalistic, even if it is the last Excellent people, once in power, tend to be corrupted by the passion of desire. Therefore...the law is rationality that excludes passion, so it is preferable to individuals." Although Acton's remarks are full of the persistence of a believer. Acton The reason why Acton is touching also comes from the warnings he summed up from historical facts.

The most noticeable thing about Acton's historical theory is that whenever he talks about "power", he does not have a specific personal attribute, but refers to it in general. Whether it is the power of believers, the power of princes and nobles, the power of the people, the power that represents the people, the power that represents money, or the power that claims to represent natural law, "the power of progress," justice and peace, or "the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people." , in short, no matter what kind of power, as long as it is backed by violence (this is inevitable), as long as it loses checks and balances and becomes "absolute power", it will tend to ("tend to", translated as "lead to", which is inevitable in terms of language. Too tough) cruelty, corruption and injustice.

Only this view of power can provide us with insights that anyone who observes the brutal politics of the twentieth century can learn from.

In his view, the most terrifying situation in political life is that "there is no separation between morality and religion, and there is no separation between politics and morality; in religion, morality, and politics, there is only one legislator and one authority." Throughout all his works, there is always a basic position that is not seen in the local historiography of our Spring and Autumn Period, that is, whether religious freedom or secular freedom that humans can enjoy, they are all products of the balance of power. Discussing the causes of the decline of civilization in the classical age, he said: "Individuals, families, groups, and territories (which are of course all social elements necessary to maintain the balance of power) are so base that the ruling power can use them for their own purposes. Their own purposes. The concubine dominates the citizens just as the master dominates the slaves. By neglecting private interests and neglecting the moral life and progress of the people, both Greece and Rome lost the key factors to maintain the prosperity of the country. "He started from this. In this phenomenon, we can read the source of "the various fallacies that infringe today's political society - utilitarianism, the confusion between autocracy and authority, lawlessness and freedom." More than a hundred years later, we will definitely have a more personal experience with these fallacious doctrines and confusing concepts than Acton did. So when we see Acton say, "Whenever some single definite end becomes the supreme end of the state, whether it be the superiority of a class, the security or power of the state, the greatest happiness of the greatest number, or the With the support of an abstract concept, it is inevitable for the country to move toward autocracy." We don't know whether to admire his foresight or to lament our foolishness.

Acton has much to say about the role of pluralism in the private and public spheres in checking and balancing power. His remarks in this regard are the most important content in the classical liberal tradition, but they are often Another aspect overlooked by many anti-liberals is that it also forms an essential ingredient in modern theories of knowledge transmission or communication. Today, people talk a lot about the theory of social intercourse. Many commentators only look to critical theory or Habermas, but they fail to see that liberalism has a lot of remarks about the community life, which is sufficient to constitute this kind of theory. An indispensable part of public communication thinking.

The various systems formed by a social entity that are conducive to personal freedom not only provide us with a barrier to protect our private lives, but also a structure that is conducive to group gathering and cooperation, and a promotion In this regard, the liberal tradition that Acton adheres to can be called "individualism", but it is also a kind of dialogue about how thousands of individuals deal with each other. “Group Studies” and cooperation. Like some "critical theories", liberalism regards the existence of this dialogue community as a process that allows various concepts and behavior patterns that are not yet known to be right or wrong to unfold in a peaceful environment, because this is The sociological prerequisites necessary for people to form unified moral norms and public goals. In philosophical epistemology, we can see a lot of remarks about how "truth" is produced (or cannot be produced). Those who are interested may wish to compare them with the liberal theory of homogeneity. For example, the American philosopher Peirce, who was ignored by the Chinese people but has become popular again due to the promotion of Lyotard and others in recent years, one of his most precious ideological legacies is that he still adheres to the objectivist position on the issue of "truth", but It also believes that "truth" can only exist in an endless process that is gradually formed or unfolded in the free dialogue of the (scientific) *** community. Another example is Wittgenstein's later philosophy, which also attributed the formation of "correct" pragmatics to the process of habitual communication among a language group. In fact, not only the truth and language usage, but also the habit of keeping promises, the integration of power and money relations into the rule of law, and the process of turning privileges into equal rights are also like this: without freedom of participation and dialogue, it is impossible to establish the basis for gaining knowledge. rules of communication (although it is not a "truth" in the scientific sense). In the field of political philosophy, such insights can be found everywhere. Regardless of Karl Popper, who is famous for advocating an "open society", whether it is Arendt's classical pacifism, or the conservative Oakeshott's "civil society" theory, we can see a lot of it. Thoughts about this open homogeneous body. Habermas, who may be used by many people to compete with liberalism, not only clearly believes that the civil class ("bourgeoisie") is a homogeneous entity that promotes the modern "dialogue ethics", but also regards it as The most important force to counteract authoritarianism and rigid institutions - of course, no liberal would object to such an idea.

Therefore, in terms of the role of the public sphere in generating freedom-based political consciousness in dialogue, the differences between Western liberalism and some left-wing schools of thought may have been overstated.

Interpreting Acton's articles on church and national issues from this perspective, we can see that the methods he provided to solve the differences between the church and believers included both firm conservative beliefs and , and also contains rich "dialogue communication theory". For him, the church is more like a community of dialogue rather than a rigid and strict "organization". Its value to believers lies in the fact that it provides a place for discussion and gaining knowledge. He said, “Theological and other views which have long been adhered to and permitted in the Church have acquired insights over time, and have established a certain binding authority through the connivance of the Pope, and would therefore have been, had it not been for the sake of indiscretion, , we cannot give up lightly.” Here he touches on a crucial and universal political issue, namely the relationship between freedom and authority: although the church is an authoritative institution, its real legitimacy does not come from it. Its institutional power lies not in its own right but in its consistency with the common beliefs of its adherents. As long as it generally achieves this, fierce denial of its authority will not bring about change, but will cause division or reaction, because "the fruitful victory comes from the gradual evolution of the knowledge, concepts and beliefs of the Catholic faithful", which will Force traditional spokesmen to adapt to the new environment and ultimately overcome their hesitancy to abandon conventions. Therefore, the most reasonable way to reform should be to influence its believers before affecting the authority, so that its opinions slowly and calmly affect the church. Such changes "neither produce any morally damaging conflicts nor lead to loss of decency." surrender". But the other side of this system that is self-evident is that all of this must be premised on an open "community of faith": the church cannot prohibit the review of "the rationality and legitimacy of decrees, and let reason and conscience "Make concessions"; believers cannot "abandon authority because it has been abused" because "both of these actions are equally sinful. On the one hand, it is a betrayal of morality; on the other hand, it is a betrayal of faith. The executor of the church's precepts cannot relieve the conscience; simply apostasy cannot relieve the conscience."

This kind of consubstantial philosophy was also extended by Acton to his view of the rise of Christianity at that time. understanding of nationalism. In his opinion, there were three most important "critical social theories" of his time, namely "egalitarianism, communism and nationalism". What they opposed were all caused by rulers' selfishness and abuse of power. order. In particular, nationalism is "the one with the most promising prospects of gaining power". It is "not only the most powerful assistant of the revolution, but also the true essence of various movements in the past three years." Although it is a historical retrogression, "it must always maintain its strength in the revolutionary era it declares to have entered." Isaiah Berlin once asserted in his famous article "Nationalism" that no nineteenth-century thinker could have foreseen the important influence of nationalism in the twentieth century. It is a pity that someone as knowledgeable as Berlin has not read Acton's "On Nations".

But it is not difficult to imagine that, with the universal sentiments of a Catholic, although Acton was aware of the power of this trend, he could not fully agree with it. In his view, although nationalism has its positive role of reminding the existence of oppression and proposing the direction of reform, it cannot be regarded as the political basis for rebuilding a secular society, because pure nationalism “can serve diametrically opposed political principles and Parties of all kinds.” It values ??the collective will above all else, incorporates all people's interests into an illusory unity, and requires them to sacrifice their own habits and obligations. It may use national autonomy, people's freedom and the protection of religion as its banners, but in fact it "speaks only for itself" and "if it cannot unite with them, it will not hesitate to let the nation sacrifice all other causes in order to win." After reading this, it may be easier for us to understand why narrow nationalism often went hand in hand with bellicose and militaristic militarism in the twentieth century.

But this is only one pole of nationalism. What is valuable about Acton is that he is not the kind of cosmopolitan who was cultivated by the Enlightenment. He does not deny that there is still a healthy national sentiment. In a speech titled "Historians and the Future of Europe" on the eve of the end of World War II, Hayek specifically suggested using Acton's national theory as one of the basic principles for eliminating Germany's narrow national sentiments after the war.

This is not only because he requires historians to be like Acton, who should not avoid moral judgment on the grounds of value neutrality and dare to say "Hitler is a bad guy", but also because in his view, Acton has a very open attitude. National view.

The other view of the nation that he affirmed has no similarity whatsoever with the idea of ??national antagonism except that it opposes the autocratic suzerain or colonial government. He believes that although national interests are an important factor in determining the form of a country, they are not supreme. A multi-ethnic community naturally has the potential to be colorful rather than homogeneous, harmonious rather than unified, and more importantly, the existence of multi-ethnic communities can also constitute an expansion of national power. The ultimate limitation is that private rights that may be sacrificed by the nation-state have the opportunity to be protected on the basis of national differences. It uses "separately existing" local feelings (I think it is necessary to point out here that this is the original meaning of "patriotism") to influence and restrict the actions of the rulers. Therefore, Acton also compared the existence of several ethnic groups in a sovereign country to the independence of the church, believing that they can play the same role in maintaining the balance of power and "avoid the spread of slavery under the cover of a single authority." He optimistically (perhaps too optimistically) believed that "the existence of several ethnic groups under the same country is not only the best guarantee of freedom, but also a verification of freedom." From this, he also denied a mainstream theory of modern liberalism preached by John Mill: "The consistency of government boundaries with national boundaries is generally a necessary condition for a free system."

Of course, from these discussions, we can also confirm an important principle in modern knowledge theory, that is, difference is a necessary condition for human cooperation to promote knowledge progress. As he said, "The union of different nations within one country, just like the union of people in one society, is a necessary condition for civilized life. The inferior race living in a political union can obtain the benefits of the intellectually superior race." Improvement. An exhausted race is revived by association with younger life, under the discipline of a stronger and less corrupt people, through the demoralizing influence of despotism or the destructive effect of democratic institutions on social conformity. A nation that has lost its organizational elements and its ability to govern can be restored and re-educated." Although these remarks slightly reveal the racist flavor that was prevalent in his era, if we use today's terms such as "national equality" or "complementary advantages" to correct them, I don't think Acton would object, because in In his writing, a country as a political organization does not have the mystery of a single ethnic culture, but should become a "melting pot that promotes integration." The free system it gradually forms can make customs, vitality, and creativity more advanced. Different groups, each with their own strengths, spread their strengths to each other and expand people's horizons in observing life. Improper handling of ethnic differences can certainly lead to serious conflicts, but when properly administered, it can also bring huge benefits to the country, allowing everyone to "find his own interests among his neighbors. . . . Civilization and The interests of religion are thereby promoted."

Although there are these ideas that are still full of vitality in contemporary public philosophy, in the eyes of today's people, is Acton a very old-school figure? In fact, we are not the only ones, even in the eyes of his contemporaries more than a hundred years ago, it is inevitable that people will have such thoughts. His aristocratic status, his insistence on making his Catholic faith go hand in hand with liberalism, his ecumenical sentiments and conservative stance were all incompatible with the general climate of spiritual life for the next hundred years. When Hayek founded the "Mont-Pilgrim Society", he suggested naming the society after Acton and Tocqueville, which almost made the Americans who attended the meeting walk away. It is not without reason that American liberals are not willing to cite Acton as a comrade. Perhaps they did not appreciate Acton's outstanding defense of American constitutionalism, but they could not forget that he not only had an aristocratic status that American culture hated, but he also had good words for the slaveholding elements in the South who firmly believed in federalism - this It is also a wrong conclusion derived from correct reasons, because he always stubbornly believes that in maintaining liberal constitutionalism, the balance of power is more important than the equality of rights.

In fact, what we see from Acton’s often neglected ideological experience is that there is almost no ultimate solution to the problem of ranking values ??in the political world. The issues of one time and one place determine the priority of a society in choosing values.

Freedom, equality, democracy, the rule of law, national independence, public spirit, private space, etc., if we put aside the time factor, are all extremely desirable values, but they can only exist in history and in specific situations. Only in the social and economic environment can human beings choose to obtain the value of real life forms. The choice Acton made was that freedom and faith were unconditionally higher than other values, and he believed that the only thing that could guarantee their security was a constitutional system based on the principle of checks and balances of power. We can regard this as just his own belief, or even as a historian's wishful thinking and anti-historical bias. Many people will also criticize him for his lack of thought in terms of equality, democracy, and human rights. But there is no reason for us to ignore the wisdom he taught us: no matter what kind of rule, as long as there is unrestricted power, it will tend to become corrupt. An important reason he provides for this is that absolute power may "corrupt conscience, numb the mind, and make it lose its understanding of the environment." Contrary to the historic impression Acton left on people, his repeated emphasis on power checks and balances do not simply come from his beliefs or ideas, but a kind of empiricism based on faith, or It is called the wisdom of historians.

The Prophet of Liberalism

——Read Acton's "The History of Freedom"

Li Baiguang

1. Acton "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." This motto is almost universally known. However, as for the author of this proverb, Lord Acton, there are probably not many Chinese readers who know his name and his book for sure. Not only that, even in Acton’s home country, Britain, in the 19th century when stars were shining, in the palace of British thought, Acton was just a historian who did not attract much attention. When Acton died in 1902, his name was unknown to the general public. Recent scholars only know that he was one of the most knowledgeable people of his time, a professor of history at Cambridge University, and the editor-in-chief of the massive "Cambridge Modern History". However, he was not an ordinary professor of history. In fact, he was , he was one of the most important thinkers of his time.

The gold particles are extracted from the sand after countless arduous processes. In the understanding of human destiny and social life, isn't this the case with the appearance of particles of truth? History often returns to the starting point it once tried to transcend after experiencing many disastrous tragedies and farces, and returns to the original starting point from the wrong path. This is true in the field of practice, so why not be true in the field of thought? As we sweep away the dust of history, we discover the prophecies and truths of the prophets that have been hidden for too long and have been ignored for too long. The fate of Acton's thoughts in the West and China once again shows that people will only look for the prophet's prophecies after a disaster and pursue the truth spoken by the prophet. Today, nearly a hundred years after Acton's death, it is not outdated at all for us to introduce his works that are very close to us today into China.

Acton was born in Naples (now Italy) on January 10, 1834. His father was Ferdinand Richard Edward Dahlberg-Acton and his mother was Marie de Dahlberg (later Countess of Granville). His father is of British descent, and his mother is of Italian and French descent. During his childhood, Acton studied in Italy and France. From 1848 to 1854, he studied at the University of Munich in Germany under Professor Dullinger. Dullinger influenced Acton's subsequent life. This influence is not only reflected in Acton's thoughts, but also in his scholarly style. Acton was very knowledgeable. He read many books in the fields of philosophy, literature, history and theology, which became the source of his profound academic foundation.

In 1859, the 25-year-old Acton served as the editor-in-chief of the British Catholic magazine "Talker"; in 1862, he renamed the magazine "Domestic and Foreign Review" and ceased publication in 1864; in 1859 During 1865, he became a member of Parliament representing the Irish municipality of Rolo; he was awarded honorary degrees by the University of Munich, the University of Cambridge and the University of Oxford; from 1895 to 1902, he served as the Imperial Chair Professor of Modern History at the University of Cambridge and an honorary member of Trinity College. He planned and presided over the compilation of the voluminous "Cambridge Modern History", but he passed away before the first volume of the book was published.

He never wrote a large personal monograph in his life, which is probably one of the important reasons why he has been ignored for a long time. But he was actually a prolific man, leaving behind many papers, notes, speeches, essays, letters and well-recorded personal reflections. It was in these texts that later generations rediscovered Acton.

Acton’s thinking and scholarly interests are very broad,