The letters which are herewith presented to
the public contain nothing beyond passing notices
of such objects as chiefly attracted my attention
during nine very agreeable weeks passed amidst
the care-killing amusements of Paris. I hardly
know what they contain; for though I have
certainly been desirous of giving my correspondent,
as far as I was able, some idea of Paris
at the present day, I have been at least equally
anxious to avoid everything approaching to so
presumptuous an attempt as it would have been
to give a detailed history of all that was going
on there during the period of our stay.
These letters, therefore, have been designedly
as unconnected as possible: I have in this been
décousu upon principle, and would rather have
given a regular journal, after the manner of
Lloyd's List, noting all the diligences which
have come in and gone out of "la belle ville"
during my stay there, than have attempted to
analyse and define the many unintelligible incongruities
which appeared to me to mark the
race and mark the time.
But though I felt quite incapable of philosophically
examining this copious subject, or, in
fact, of going one inch beneath the surface while
describing the outward aspect of all around me,
I cannot but confess that the very incongruity
which I dared not pretend to analyse appeared to
me by far the most remarkable feature in the present
state of the country.
There has, I know, always been something of
this kind attributed to the French character.
Splendour and poverty—grace and grimace—delicacy
and filth—learning and folly—science and
frivolity, have often been observed among them
in a closeness of juxta-position quite unexampled
elsewhere; but of late it has become infinitely
more conspicuous,—or rather, perhaps, this want
of consistency has seemed to embrace objects of
more importance than formerly. Heretofore,
though it was often suspected in graver matters,
it was openly demonstrated only on points which
concerned the externals of society rather than the
vital interests of the country; but from the removal
of that restraint which old laws, old customs,
and old authority imposed upon the public
acts of the people, the unsettled temper of mind
which in time past showed itself only in what
might, comparatively speaking, be called trifles,
may in these latter days be traced without much
difficulty in affairs of much greater moment.
No one of any party will now deny, I believe,
that many things which by their very nature
appear to be incompatible have been lately seen
to exist in Paris, side by side, in a manner which
certainly resembled nothing that could be found
elsewhere.
As instances of this kind pressed upon me, I
have sometimes felt as if I had got behind the
scenes of a theatre, and that all sorts of materials,
for all sorts of performances, were jumbled together
around me, that they might be ready at
a moment's notice if called for. Here a crown—there
a cap of liberty. On this peg, a mantle
embroidered with fleurs-de-lis; on that, a tri-coloured
flag. In one corner, all the paraphernalia
necessary to deck out the pomp and pageantry of
the Catholic church; and in another, all the
symbols that can be found which might enable
them to show respect and honour to Jews, Turks,
infidels, and heretics. In this department might
be seen very noble preparations to support a
grand military spectacle; and in that, all the
prettiest pageants in the world, to typify eternal
peace.
I saw all these things, for it was impossible
not to see them; but as to the scene-shifters who
were to prepare the different tableaux, I in truth
knew nothing about them. Their trap-doors,
wires, and other machinery were very wisely
kept out of sight of such eyes as mine; for had
I known anything of the matter, I should most
assuredly have told it all, which would greatly
tend to mar the effect of the next change of
decorations.
It was with this feeling, and in this spirit of
purely superficial observation, that the foregoing
letters were written; but, ere I commit them to
the press, I wish to add a few graver thoughts
which rest upon my mind as the result of all
that I saw and heard while at Paris, connected
as they now are with the eventful changes which
have occurred in the short interval that has
elapsed since I left it.
"The country is in a state of transition," is a
phrase which I have often listened to, and often
been disposed to laugh at, as a sort of oracular
interpretation of paradoxes which, in truth, no
one could understand: but the phrase may now
be used without any Delphic obscurity. France
was indeed in a state of transition exactly at
the period of which I have been writing; but
this uncertain state is past, nearly all the puzzling
anomalies which so completely defied interpretation
have disappeared, and it may now be fairly
permitted, to simple-minded travellers who pretend
not to any conjuring skill, to guess a little
what she is about.
I revisited France with that animating sensation
of pleasure which arises from the hope of
reviving old and agreeable impressions; but this
pleasure was nevertheless dashed with such feeling
of regret as an English conservative may be
supposed to feel for the popular violence which
had banished from her throne its legitimate
sovereign.
As an abstract question of right and wrong,
my opinion of this act cannot change; but the
deed is done,—France has chosen to set aside
the claim of the prince who by the law of hereditary
succession has a right to the crown, in
favour of another prince of the same royal line,
whom in her policy she deems more capable of
insuring the prosperity of the country. The deed
is done; and the welfare of tens of millions who
had, perhaps, no active share in bringing it about
now hangs upon the continuance of the tranquillity
which has followed the change.
However deep therefore may be the respect
felt for those who, having sworn fealty to Charles
the Tenth, continue steadfastly undeviating in
their declaration of his right, and firm in their
refusal to recognise that of any other, still a
stranger and sojourner in the land may honestly
acknowledge the belief that the prosperity of
France at the present hour depends upon her
allegiance to the king she has chosen, without
being accused of advocating the cause of revolution.
To judge fairly of France as she actually exists,
it is absolutely necessary to throw aside all memory
of the purer course she might have pursued
five years ago, by the temperate pleading of her
chartered rights, to obtain redress of such evils
as really existed. The popular clamour which
rose and did the work of revolution, though it
originated with factious demagogues and idle boys,
left the new power it had set in action in the
hands of men capable of redeeming the noble
country they were called to govern from the
state of disjointed weakness in which they found
it. The task has been one of almost unequalled
difficulty and peril; but every day gives greater
confidence to the hope, that after forty years of
blundering, blustering policy, and changes so multiplied
as to render the very name of revolution
ridiculous, this superb kingdom, so long our rival,
and now, as we firmly trust, our most assured
ally, will establish her government on a basis
firm enough to strengthen the cause of social
order and happiness throughout all Europe.
The days, thank Heaven! are past when Englishmen
believed it patriotic to deny their Gallic
neighbours every faculty except those of making
a bow and of eating a frog, while they were repaid
by all the weighty satire comprised in the
two impressive words John Bull. We now
know each other better—we have had a long
fight, and we shake hands across the water with
all the mutual good-will and respect which is
generated by a hard struggle, bravely sustained
on both sides, and finally terminated by a hearty
reconciliation.
The position, the prospects, the prosperity of
France are become a subject of the deepest interest
to the English nation; and it is therefore that
the observations of any one who has been a recent
looker-on there may have some value, even
though they are professedly drawn from the surface
only. But when did ever the surface of human
affairs present an aspect so full of interest?
Now that so many of the circumstances which
have been alluded to above as puzzling and incongruous
have been interpreted by the unexpected
events which have lately crowded upon each other,
I feel aware that I have indeed been looking on
upon the dénouement of one of the most interesting
political dramas that ever was enacted. The
movements of King Philippe remind one of those
by which a bold rider settles himself in the saddle,
when he has made up his mind for a rough
ride, and is quite determined not to be thrown.
When he first mounted, indeed, he took his seat
less firmly; one groom held the stirrup, another
the reins: he felt doubtful how far he should be
likely to go—the weather looked cloudy—he
might dismount directly.... But soon the sun
burst from behind the cloud that threatened him:
Now for it, then! neck or nothing! He orders
his girths to be tightened, his curb to be well set,
and the reins fairly and horsemanly put into his
hands.... Now he is off! and may his ride be
prosperous!—for should he fall, it is impossible to
guess how the dust which such a catastrophe
might raise would settle itself.
The interest which his situation excites is sufficiently
awakening, and produces a species of romantic
feeling, that may be compared to what
the spectators experienced in the tournaments of
old, when they sat quietly by to watch the result
of a combat à outrance. But greater, far greater
is the interest produced by getting a near view of
the wishes and hopes of the great people who
have placed their destinies in his hands.
Nothing that is going on in Paris—in the
Chamber of Deputies, in the Chamber of Peers, or
even in the Cabinet of the King—could touch me
so much, or give me half so much pleasure to
listen to, as the tone in which I have heard some
of the most distinguished men in France speak of
the repeated changes and revolutions in her government.
It is not in one or two instances only that I
have remarked this tone,—in fact, I might say
that I have met it whenever I was in the society
of those whose opinions especially deserved attention.
I hardly know, however, how to describe
it, for it cannot be done by repeating isolated
phrases and observations. I should say, that it
marks distinctly a consciousness that such frequent
changes are not creditable to any nation—that
they feel half ashamed to talk of them gravely,
yet more than half vexed to speak of the land
they love with anything approaching to lightness
or contempt. That the men of whom I speak do
love their country with a true, devoted, Romanlike
attachment, I am quite sure; and I never remember
to have felt the conviction that I was
listening to real patriots so strongly as when I
have heard them reason on the causes, deplore the
effects, and deprecate the recurrence of these direful
and devastating convulsions.
It is, if I mistake not, this noble feeling of
wishing to preserve their country from the disgrace
of any farther demonstrations of such frail
inconstancy, which will tend to keep Louis-Philippe
on his throne as much, or even more perhaps,
than that newly-awakened energy in favour
of the boutique and the bourse of which we hear
so much.
It is nowise surprising that this proud but virtuous
sentiment should yet exist, notwithstanding
all that has happened to check and to chill it.
Frenchmen have still much of which they may
justly boast. After a greater continuance of external
war and internal commotion than perhaps
any country was ever exposed to within the same
space of time, France is in no degree behind the
most favoured nations of Europe in any one of
the advantages which have ever been considered
as among the especial blessings of peace. Tremendous
as have been her efforts and her struggles,
the march of science has never faltered:
the fine arts have been cherished with unremitting
zeal and a most constant care, even while
every citizen was a soldier; and now, in this
breathing-time that Heaven has granted her, she
presents a spectacle of hopeful industry, active
improvement, and prosperous energy, which is unequalled,
I believe, in any European country except
our own.
Can we wonder, then, that the nation is disposed
to rally round a prince whom Fate seems to have
given expressly as an anchor to keep her firm and
steady through the heavy swell that the late storms
have left? Can we wonder that feelings, and
even principles, are found to bend before an influence
so salutary and so strong?
However irregular the manner in which he
ascended the throne, Louis-Philippe had himself
little more to do with it than yielding to the voice
of the triumphant party who called upon him to
mount its troublesome pre-eminence; and at the
moment he did so, he might very fairly have exclaimed—
"If chance will have me king, why chance may crown me
Without my stir."
Never certainly did any event brought on by
tumult and confusion give such fair promise of
producing eventually the reverse, as the accession
of King Louis-Philippe to the throne of
France.
The manner of this unexpected change itself,
the scenes which led to it, and even the state
of parties and of feelings which came afterwards,
all bore a character of unsettled confusion which
threatened every species of misery to the country.
When we look back upon this period, all the
events which occurred during the course of it appear
like the rough and ill-assorted fragments of
worsted on the reverse of a piece of tapestry. No
one could guess, not even the agents in them,
what the final result would be. But they were
at work upon a design drawn by the all-powerful
and unerring hand of Providence; and strange
as the medley has appeared to us during the process,
the whole when completed seems likely to
produce an excellent effect.
The incongruous elements, however, of which
the chaos was composed from whence this new
order of things was to arise, though daily and by
slow degrees assuming shape and form, were still
in a state of "most admired disorder" during our
abode in Paris. It was impossible to guess where-unto
all those things tended which were evidently
in movement around us; and the signs of the
times were in many instances so contrary to each
other, that nothing was left for those who came
to view the land, but to gaze—to wonder, and
pass on, without attempting to reconcile contradictions
so totally unintelligible.
But, during the few weeks that have elapsed
since I left the capital of France, this obscurity
has been dispersed like a mist. It was the explosion
of an infernal machine that scattered it;
but it is the light of heaven that now shines upon
the land, making visible to the whole world on
what foundation rest its hopes, and by what
means they shall be brought to fruition.
Never, perhaps, did even a successful attempt
upon the life of an individual produce results so
important as those likely to ensue from the failure
of the atrocious plot against the King of the
French and his sons. It has roused the whole
nation as a sleeping army is roused by the sound
of a trumpet. The indifferent, the doubting—nay,
even the adverse, are now bound together by
one common feeling: an assassin has raised his
daring arm against France, and France in an
instant assumes an attitude so firm, so bold, so
steady, and so powerful, that all her enemies must
quail before it.
As for the wretched faction who sent forth this
bloody agent to do their work, they stand now
before the face of all men in the broad light of
truth. High and noble natures may sometimes
reason amiss, and may mistake the worse cause
for the better; but however deeply this may
involve them in error, it will not lead them one
inch towards crime. Such men have nothing in
common with the republicans of 1835.
From their earliest existence as a party, these
republicans have avowed themselves the unrelenting
enemies of all the powers that be: social
order, and all that sustains it, is their abhorrence;
and neither honour, conscience, nor humanity has
force sufficient to restrain them from the most
hideous crimes when its destruction is the object
proposed. Honest men of all shades of political
opinion must agree in considering this unbridled
faction as the common enemies of the human race.
In every struggle to sustain the laws which bind
society together, their hand is against every man;
and the inevitable consequence must and will be,
that every man's hand shall be against them.
Deplorable therefore as were the consequences
of the Fieschi plot in its partial murderous success,
it is likely to prove in its ultimate result of the
most important and lasting benefit to France. It
has given union and strength to her councils,
energy and boldness to her acts; and if it be the
will of Heaven that anything shall stay the plague
of insurrection and revolt which, with infection
more fearful than that of the Asiatic pest, has
tainted the air of Europe with its poisonous breath,
it is from France, where the evil first arose, that
the antidote to it is most likely to come.
It will be in vain that any republican clamour
shall attempt to stigmatise the acts of the French
legislature with the odium of an undue and tyrannical
use of the power which it has been compelled
to assume. The system upon which this
legislature has bound itself to act is in its very
nature incompatible with individual power and
individual ambition: its acts may be absolute—and
high time is it that they should be so,—but
the absolutism will not be that of an autocrat.
The theory of the doctrinaire government is not
so well, or at least so generally, understood as it
will be; but every day is making it better known
to Europe,—and whether the new principles on
which it is founded be approved or not, its power
will be seen to rest upon them, and not upon the
tyrannical will of any man or body of men
whatever.
It is not uncommon to hear persons declare
that they understand no difference between the
juste-milieu party and that of the doctrinaires;
but they cannot have listened very attentively to
the reasonings of either party.
The juste-milieu party, if I understand them
aright, consists of politicians whose principles are
in exact conformity to the expressive title they
have chosen. They approve neither of a pure
despotism nor of a pure democracy, but plead for
a justly-balanced constitutional government with
a monarch at its head.
The doctrinaires are much less definite in their
specification of the form of government which they
believe the circumstances of France to require. It
might be thought indeed, from some of their speculations,
that they were almost indifferent as to
what form the government should assume, or by
what name it should be known to the world, provided
always that it have within itself power and
efficacy sufficient to adopt and carry into vigorous
effect such measures as its chiefs shall deem most
beneficial to the country for the time being. A
government formed on these principles can pledge
itself by no guarantee to any particular line of
politics, and the country must rest contented in
the belief that its interests shall be cared for by
those who are placed in a situation to control
them.
Upon these principles, it is evident that the
circumstances in which the country is placed,
internally and externally, must regulate the policy
of her cabinet, and not any abstract theory connected
with the name assumed by her government.
Thus despotism may be the offspring of a republic;
and liberty, the gift of a dynasty which has
reigned for ages by right divine.
M. de Carné, a political writer of much ability, in
his essay on parties and "le mouvement actuel,"
ridicules in a spirit of keen satire the idea that any
order of men in France at the present day should
be supposed to interest themselves seriously for
any abstract political opinion.
"Croit-on bien sérieusement encore," he says,
"au mécanisme constitutionnel—à la multiplicité
de ses poids et contre-poids—à l'inviolabilité sacrée
de la pensée dirigeante, combinée avec la responsabilité
d'argent?"...
And again he says,—"Est-il beaucoup d'esprits
graves qui attachent aujourd'hui une importance
de premier ordre pour le bien-être moral et matériel
de la race humaine à la substitution d'une
présidence américaine, à la royauté de 1830?"
It is evident from the tone sustained through
the whole of this ingenious essay, that it is the
object of M. Carné to convince his readers of the
equal and total futility of every political creed
founded on any fixed and abstract principle. Who
is it, he asks, "qui a établi en France un despotisme
dont on ne trouve d'exemple qu'en remontant
aux monarchies de l'Asie?—Napoleon—lequel
régnait comme les Césars Romains, en vertu de la
souveraineté du peuple. Qui a fondé, après tant
d'impuissantes tentatives, une liberté sérieuse, et
l'a fait entrer dans nos mœurs au point de ne pouvoir
plus lui résister?—La maison de Bourbon,
qui régnait par le droit divin."
In advocating this system of intrusting the
right as well as the power of governing a country
to the hands of its rulers, without exacting from
them a pledge that their measures shall be guided
by theoretical instead of practical wisdom, M.
Carné naturally refers to his own—that is to say,
the doctrinaire party, and expresses himself thus:—"Cette
disposition à chercher dans les circonstances
et dans la morale privée la seule règle
d'action politique, a donné naissance à un parti qui
s'est trop hâté de se produire, mais chez lequel il
y a assez d'avenir pour résister à ses propres fautes.
Il serait difficile d'en formuler le programme, si
vaporeux encore, autrement qu'en disant qu'il
s'attache à substituer l'étude des lois de la richesse
publique aux spéculations constitutionnelles, dont
le principal résultat est d'équilibrer sur le papier
des forces qui se déplacent inévitablement dans
leur action."
It is certainly possible that this distaste for
pledging themselves to any form or system of
government, and the apparent readiness to accommodate
their principles to the exigences of the
hour, may be as much the result of weariness
arising from all the restless experiments they have
made, as from conviction that this loose mode of
wearing a political colour, ready to drop it, or
change it according to circumstances, is in reality
the best condition in which a great nation can
place itself.
It can hardly be doubted that the French people
have become as weary of changes and experiments
as their neighbours are of watching
them. They have tried revolutions of every size
and form till they are satiated, and their spirits
are worn out and exhausted by the labour of
making new projects of laws, new charters, and
new kings. It is, in truth, contrary to their
nature to be kept so long at work. No people
in the world, perhaps, have equal energy in springing
forward to answer some sudden call, whether
it be to pull down a Bastile with Lafayette, to
overturn a throne with Robespierre, to overrun
Europe with Napoleon, or to reorganise a monarchy
with Louis-Philippe. All these deeds could
be done with enthusiasm, and therefore they
were natural to Frenchmen. But that the mass
of the people should for long years together check
their gay spirits, and submit themselves, without
the recompense of any striking stage effect, to
prose over the thorny theories of untried governments,
is quite impossible,—for such a state would
be utterly hostile to the strongest propensities of
the people. "Chassez le naturel, il revient au
galop." It is for this reason that "la loi bourgeoise"
has been proclaimed; which being interpreted,
certainly means the law of being contented
to remain as they are, making themselves
as rich and as comfortable as they possibly can,
under the shelter of a king who has the will and
the power to protect them.
M. Carné truly says,—"Le plus puissant argument
que puisse employer la royauté pour tenir
en respect la bourgeoisie, est celui dont usait l'astrologue
de Louis Onze pour avoir raison des capricieuses
velléités de son maître,—'Je mourrai juste
trois jours avant votre majesté.'"
This quotation, though it sound not very
courtier-like, may be uttered before Louis-Philippe
without offence; for it is impossible, let
one's previous political bias have been what it
will, not to perceive in every act of his government
a firm determination to support and sustain
in honour and in safety the order of things which
it has established, or to perish; and the consequence
of this straightforward policy is, that thousands
and tens of thousands who at first acknowledged
his rule only to escape from anarchy, now
cling to it, not only as a present shelter, but as a
powerful and sure defence against the return of
the miserable vicissitudes to which they have been
so long exposed.
Among many obvious advantages which the
comprehensive principles of the "doctrine" offered
to France under the peculiar circumstances in
which she was placed at the time it was first propagated,
was, that it offered a common resting-place
to all who were weary of revolutions, let
them be of what party they would. This is well
expressed by M. Carné when he says,—"Ce parti
semble appelé, par ce qu'il a de vague en lui, à
devenir le sympathique lien de ces nombreuses
intelligences dévoyées qui ont pénétré le vide de
l'idée politique."
There cannot, I think, be a happier phrase to
describe the host who have bewildered themselves
in the interminable mazes of a science so little
understood by the multitude, than this of "intelligences
dévoyées qui ont pénétré le vide de l'idée politique."
For these, it is indeed a blessing to have
found one common name (vague though it be)
under which they may all shelter themselves, and,
without the slightest reproach to the consistency
of their patriotism, join heart and hand in support
of a government which has so ably contrived
to "draw golden opinions from all sorts
of men."
In turning over the pages of Hume's History
in pursuit of a particular passage, I accidentally
came upon his short and pithy sketch of the
character and position of our Henry the Seventh.
In many points it approaches very nearly to what
might be said of Louis-Philippe.
"The personal character of the man was full of
vigour, industry, and severity; deliberate in all
his projects, steady in every purpose, and attended
with caution, as well as good fortune, in each
enterprise. He came to the throne after long and
bloody civil wars. The nation was tired with
discord and intestine convulsions, and willing to
submit to usurpations and even injuries rather
than plunge themselves anew into like miseries.
The fruitless efforts made against him served always,
as is usual, to confirm his authority."
Such a passage as this, and some others with
which I occasionally indulge myself from the
records of the days that are gone, have in them
a most consoling tendency. We are apt to believe
that the scenes we are painfully witnessing
contain, amidst the materials of which they are
formed, elements of mischief more terrible than
ever before threatened the tranquillity of mankind;
yet a little recollection, and a little confidence
in the Providence so visible in every page
of the world's history, may suffice to inspire us
with better hopes for the future than some of
our doubting spirits have courage to anticipate.
"The fruitless efforts made against" King
Philippe "have served to confirm his authority,"
and have done the same good office to him that
similar outrages did to our "princely Tudor" in
the fourteenth century. The people were sick of
"discord and intestine convulsions" in his days:
so are they at the present time in France; so will
they be again, at no very distant period, in England.
While congratulating the country I have so recently
left, as I do most heartily, on the very essential
improvements which have taken place since
my departure, I feel as if I ought to apologise for
some statements to be found in the preceding
pages of these volumes which if made now might
fairly be challenged as untrue. But during the
last few months, letters from France should have
been both written and read post-haste, or the
news they contained would not be of much worth.
We left Paris towards the end of June, and before
the end of July the whole moral condition of
France had received a shock, and undergone a
change which, though it does not falsify any of
my statements, renders it necessary at least that
the tense of many of them should be altered.
Thus, when I say that an unbounded license
in caricaturing prevails, and that the walls of the
capital are scrawled over with grotesque representations
of the sovereign, the errata should
have—"for prevails, read did prevail; for are, read
were;" and the like in many other instances.
The task of declaring that such statements are
no longer correct is, however, infinitely more
agreeable than that of making them. The daring
profligacy of all kinds which was exposed to the
eyes and the understanding at Paris before the
establishment of the laws, which have now taken
the morals of the people under their protection,
was fast sinking the country into the worst and
coarsest species of barbarism; and there is a sort
of patriotism, not belonging to the kingdom, but
to the planet that gave one birth, which must be
gratified by seeing a check given to what tended
to lower human nature itself.
As a matter of hope, and consolation too, under
similar evils which beset us at home, there is
much satisfaction to be derived from perceiving
that, however inveterate the taint may appear
which unchecked licentiousness has brought upon
a land, there is power enough in the hands of
a vigorous and efficient magistracy to stay its
progress and wipe out the stain. A "Te Deum"
for this cleansing law should be performed in
every church in Christendom.
There is something assuredly of more than
common political interest in the present position
of France, interesting to all Europe, but most
especially interesting to us. The wildest democracy
has been advocated by her press, and
even in her senate. The highest court of justice
in the kingdom has not been held sufficiently
sacred to prevent the utterance of opinions within
it which, if acted upon, would have taken the
sceptre from the hands of the king and placed it
in those of the mob. Her journals have poured
forth the most unbridled abuse, the most unmitigated
execrations against the acts of the government,
and almost against the persons of its
agents. And what has been the result of all
this? Steadily, tranquilly, firmly, and without a
shadow of vacillation, has that government proceeded
in performing the duties intrusted to it by
the country. It has done nothing hastily, nothing
rashly, nothing weakly. On first receiving the
perilous deposit of a nation's welfare,—at a moment
too when a thousand dangers from within
and without were threatening,—the most cautious
and consummate wisdom was manifested, not only
in what it did, but in what it did not do. Like
a skilful general standing on the defensive, it
remained still a while, till the first headlong rush
which was intended to dislodge it from its new
position had passed by; and when this was over,
it contemplated well the ground, the force, and
the resources placed under its command, before
it stirred one step towards improving them.
When I recollect all the nonsense I listened to
in Paris previous to the trial of the Lyons prisoners;
the prophecies that the king would not
DARE to persevere in it; the assurances from
some that the populace would rise to rescue them,—from
others, that the peers would refuse to sit
in judgment,—and from more still, that if nothing
of all this occurred in Paris, a counter-revolution
would assuredly break out in the South;—when I
remember all this, and compare it to the steady
march of daily-increasing power which has marked
every act of this singularly vigorous government
from that period to the present, I feel it
difficult to lament that, at this eventful epoch of
the world's history, power should have fallen into
hands so capable of using it wisely.
Yet, with all this courage and boldness of decision,
there has been nothing reckless, nothing
like indifference to public opinion, in the acts of
the French government. The ministers have
uniformly appeared willing to hear and to render
reason respecting all the measures they have pursued;
and the king himself has never ceased to
manifest the same temper of mind which, through
all the vicissitudes of his remarkable life, have
rendered him so universally popular. But it is
quite clear that, whatever were the circumstances
which led to his being placed on the throne of
France, Louis-Philippe can never become the tool
of a faction: I can well conceive him replying, to
any accusation brought against him, in the gentle
but dignified words of Athalie—
"Ce que j'ai fait, Abner, j'ai cru le devoir faire—
Je ne prends point pour juge un peuple téméraire."
And who is there, of all those whom nature, fortune,
and education have placed, as it were, in
inevitable opposition to him, but must be forced
to acknowledge that he is right? None, I truly
believe,—save only that unfortunate, bewildered,
puzzle-headed set of politicians, the republicans,
who seem still to hang together chiefly because no
other party will have anything to say to them,
and because they alone, of all the host of would-be
lawgivers, dare not to seek for standing-room
under the ample shelter of the doctrine, inasmuch
as its motto is "Public Order," and the well-known
gathering word of their tribe is "Confusion
and Misrule."
There are still many persons, I believe, who,
though nowise desirous themselves of seeing any
farther change in the government of France, yet
still anticipate that change must come, because
they consider it impossible that this restless party
can long remain quiet. I have heard several who
wish heartily well to the government of Louis-Philippe
express very gloomy forebodings on this subject.
They say, that however beneficial the present
order of things has been found for France, it
is vain to hope it should long endure, contrary to
the wish and will of so numerous a faction; especially
as the present government is formed on the
doctrine, that the protection of arts and industry,
and the fostering of all the objects connected with
that wealth and prosperity to which the restoration
of peace has led, should be its first object:
whereas the republicans are ever ready to be
up and doing in any cause that promises change
and tumult, and will therefore be found, whenever
a struggle shall arise, infinitely better prepared
to fight it out than the peaceable and well-contented
majority, of whom they are the declared
enemies.
I think, however, that such reasoners are altogether
wrong: they leave out of their consideration
one broad and palpable fact, which is, however,
infinitely more important than any other,—namely,
that a republic is a form of government
completely at variance with the spirit of the
French people. That it has been already tried
and found to fail, is only one among many proofs
that might easily be brought forward to show
this. That love of glory which all the world
seems to agree in attributing to France as one of
her most remarkable national characteristics, must
ever prevent her placing the care of her dignity
and her renown in the hands of a mob. It was
in a moment of "drunken enthusiasm" that her
first degrading revolution was brought about;
and deep as was the disgrace of it, no one can
fairly say that the nation should be judged by the
wild acts then perpetrated. Everything that has
since followed goes to establish the conviction,
that France cannot exist as a republic.
There is a love of public splendour in their
nature that seems as much born with them as
their black eyes; and they must have, as a centre
to that splendour, a king and a court, round
which they may move, and to which they may do
homage in the face of Europe without fearing
that their honour or their dignity can be compromised
thereby. It has been said (by an Englishman)
that the present is the government of the
bourgeoisie, and that Louis-Philippe is "un roi
bourgeois." His Bourbon blood, however, saves
him from this jest; and if by "the government of
the bourgeoisie" is meant a cabinet composed of
and sustained by the wealth of the country, as
well as its talent and its nobility, there is nothing
in the statement to shock either patrician pride or
regal dignity.
The splendid military pageant in which the
French people followed the imperial knight-errant
who led them as conquerors over half Europe,
might well have sufficient charm to make so warlike
a nation forget for a while all the blessings of
peace, as well as the more enduring glory which
advancing science and well-instructed industry
might bring. But even had Napoleon not fallen,
the delirium of this military fever could not
have been much longer mistaken for national prosperity
by such a country as France; and, happily
for her, it was not permitted to go on long enough
to exhaust her strength so entirely as to prevent
her repairing its effects, and starting with fresh
vigour in a far nobler course.
But even now, with objects and ambition so
new and so widely different before their eyes,
what is the period to which the memory of the
people turns with the greatest complacency?...
Is it to the Convention, or to the Directory?—Is
it to their mimicry of Roman Consulships? Alas!
for the classic young-headed republicans of France!...
they may not hope that their cherished
vision can ever endure within the realm of St.
Louis long enough to have its lictors' and its
tribunes' robes definitively decided on.
No! it is not to this sort of schoolboy mummery
that Gallic fancies best love to return,—but
to that portentous interval when the bright blaze
of a magnificent meteor shone upon their iron
chains, and made them look like gold. If this be
true—if it cannot be denied that the affections of
the French people cling with more gratitude to
the splendid despotism of Napoleon than to any
other period of their history, is it to be greatly
feared that they should turn from the substantial
power and fame that now
"Flames in the forehead of the morning sky"
before their eyes, accompanied as they are by the
brightest promise of individual prosperity and
well-being, in order to plunge themselves again
into the mingled "blood and mire" with which
their republic begrimed its altars?
Were there even no other assurance against
such a deplorable effort at national self-destruction
than that which is furnished by the cutting ridicule
so freely and so generally bestowed upon it,
this alone, in a country where a laugh is so omnipotent,
might suffice to reassure the spirits of the
timid and the doubting. It has been said sturdily
by a French interpreter of French feelings, that
"si le diable sortait de l'enfer pour se battre, il se
présenterait un Français pour accepter le défi."
I dare say this may be very true, provided said
diable does not come to the combat equipped
from the armoury of Ridicule,—in which case the
French champion would, I think, be as likely to
run away as not: and for this reason, if for no
other, I truly believe it to be impossible that any
support should now be given in France to a party
which has not only made itself supremely detestable
by its atrocities, but supremely ridiculous by
its absurdities.
It is needless to recapitulate here observations
already made. They have been recorded lightly,
however, and their effect upon the reader may
not be so serious as that produced upon my own
mind by the circumstances which drew them forth;
but it is certain that had not the terrible and
most ferocious plot against the King's life given
a character of horror to the acts of the republican
party in France, I should be tempted to conclude
my statement of all I have seen and heard of them
by saying, that they had mixed too much of weakness
and of folly in their literature, in their political
acts, and in their general bearing and demeanour,
to be ever again considered as a formidable
enemy by the government.
I was amused the other day by reading in an
English newspaper, or rather in an extract from
an Irish one, (The Dublin Journal,) a passage in
a speech of Mr. Daniel O'Connell's to the "Dublin
Trades' Union," the logic of which, allowing perhaps
a little for the well-known peculiarities in
the eloquence of the "Emerald Isle," reminded
me strongly of some of the republican reasonings
to which I have lately listened in Paris.
"The House of Commons," says Mr. Daniel
O'Connell, "will always be a pure and independent
body, BECAUSE we are under the lash
of our masters, and we will be kicked out if
we do not perform the duties imposed on us by
the people."
Trifling as are the foregoing pages, and little
as they may seem obnoxious to any very grave
criticism, I am quite aware that they expose me
to the reproach of having permitted myself to be
wrought upon by the "wind of doctrine." I will
not deny the charge; but I will say in defence of
this "shadow of turning," (for it is in truth no
more,) that I return with the same steadfast belief
which I carried forth, in the necessity of a government
for every country which should possess
power and courage to resist at all times the voice
of a wavering populace, while its cares were
steadily directed to the promotion of the general
welfare.
As well might every voice on board a seventy-four
be lifted to advise the captain how to manage
her, as the judgment of all the working classes in
a state be offered on questions concerning her government.
A self-regulating populace is a chimera, and a
dire one. The French have discovered this already;
the Americans are beginning, as I hear,
to feel some glimmerings of this important truth
breaking in upon them; and for our England,
spite of all the trash upon this point that she has
been pleased to speak and to hear, she is not a
country likely to submit, if the struggle should
come, to be torn to pieces by her own mob.
Admirably, however, as this jury-mast of "the
doctrine" appears to answer in France, where the
whirlwind and the storm had nearly made the
brave vessel a wreck, it would be a heavy day for
England were she to find herself compelled to
have recourse to the same experiment for safety—for
the need of it can never arise without being
accompanied by a necessity for such increased
severity of discipline as would be very distasteful
to her. It is true, indeed, that her spars do creak
and crack rather ominously just at present: nevertheless,
it will require a tougher gale than any she
has yet had to encounter, before she will be tempted
to throw overboard such a noble piece of heart
of oak as her constitution, which does in truth
tower above every other, and, "like the tall mast
of some proud admiral," looks down upon those
around, whether old or new, well-seasoned and
durable, or only skilfully erected for the nonce,
with a feeling of conscious superiority that she
would be very sorry to give up.
But whatever the actual position of England
may be, it must be advantageous to her, as well as
to every other country in Europe, that France
should assume the attitude she has now taken.
The cause of social order is a common cause
throughout the civilised world, and whatever
tends to promote it is a common blessing. Obvious
as is this truth, its importance is not yet fully
understood; but the time must come when it will
be,—and then all the nations of the earth will be
heard to proclaim in chorus, that
"Le pire des états, c'est l'état populaire."
THE END.
LONDON:
PRINTED BY SAMUEL BENTLEY,
Dorset Street, Fleet Street.