Obrazy na stronie
PDF
ePub

THE FRENCII REVOLUTION OF 1848.

Revolution in France! Let Europe tremble to her centre at the sound. Let monarchs and subjects alike stand aghast. The hideous spirit is once more evoked, which, but half a century ago, devastated mankind — which crushed and overturned empires, and made the fair plains of Europe a desert-which added to ruthless violence the subtle poison of its principles, that both body and mind might sink at its approach, that it might be, in every sense, the destroyer which scattered anarchy, rapine, and infidelity far and wide and in the scenes of riot, terror, and perplexity in which it revelled, disclosed to the astounded beholders an amount of deformity in human nature, when naked and uncontrolled, far exceeding what it had ever entered into the mind of man to conceive before- and such as we most fervently trust, it never will be our fate to witness again. Once more is this dreadful power free. Democracy in France has burst the chains to which a mighty conqueror and its own excesses had consigned it, and stands forth once more, at large and princes and potentates and great nations rush forward now with anxious haste, and eager rivalry, to offer homage and congratulation to this newly-risen power, and England, whose pride and glory it was to have riveted its chains, is foremost in her acknowledgments; all, all are eager to propitiate the divinity; they crowd onward with the indecent haste of cringing courtiers to a newly-proclaimed sovereign, emulous in their strife to secure the youthful monarch's smile, or avert his frowns

"Can such things be, And overcome us like a summer cloud, Without our special wonder."

ears of the humiliated Louis and his heroic queen, as the ruffian mob of Paris defiled before them with fierce derision, through their royal palace of Versailles - the words which were bellowed from the throats of the savage rioters, who burst into the august presence of the national assembly, demanding, with dreadful menace, from the cowering deputies, the fulfilment of their demands the words which rang in the ears of the five thousand victims of the five days of September, who fell untried, in the prisons of Paris, by the hands of a hired gang of butchers- the words which Marat, Danton, Robespierre, and the kindred fiends with whom they were allied, chanted in their career of regicide and of blood — the words which thus consecrated, embodied and expressed the sole creed of the French nation, after they had formally, and with solemn rites renounced their allegiance to the Supreme Being, and denied his existence — the words, Liberty, Fraternity, Equality.

This principle of democracy is one which is altogether new to mankind—it is avowedly a claim for the ignorance of the country to control its intelligence-it is a formal declaration that property shall be stripped of its legitimate influence, and shall succumb to blind passion and brute force. Such doctrines have been universally scouted as monstrous by all the sages of antiquity.

[ocr errors]

Among the great nations of antiquity democracy could not have existed, because of the universal prevalence of slavery. Let the political institutions of the country have been as free as they could be made to eyery citizen of the state, still the domestic servants, the laborers, the mechanics, the artisans, in short, the physical force of the country; the men whose position Doubtless it may be, that, schooled by the doomed them to labor while it debarred them past, this mighty power may shun the enormities from the acquirement of education or of property by which it formerly was made infamous. It the lower classes, those who are now by the may be, unquestionably, that the over-ruling Providence, who can adopt what instruments he pleaseth, may direct the might of this newly-refreshed giant to the most beneficent purposes, and that under such guidance it may prove a blessing, instead of a terror and a scourge. This alone time will reveal we know not, we write while the tidings are still ringing fresh in our ears, and before we have had leisure to examine, or it has had opportunity to display, its character and features we have barely caught a glimpse of the banner which it has unfurled, and as we read the motto there inscribed, we pronounce the self-same words which were shouted in the

proclamation of the self-constituted provisional government of France, declared politically equal to the wisest and most independent in the land; those amongst the ancients were all slaves-a class to whom political rights were never accorded; democracy, consequently, as it is now understood, could not then by possibility have existed. In Athens, which is the only state of antiquity which is ever brought forward as an instance of a democratic constitution, it is calculated that to a population of less than 100,000 free inhabitants, there were 400,000 slaves. But for this feature in its constitution, Athens certainly would be an example of an ancient de

mocracy; not, however, the Athens which Solon | sedition, the heart-burnings, the hostility of

established; that sagacious lawgiver took effectual care that property should be efficiently represented, but Athens as it was subsequently revolutionized. And what an example do we there find of the evils of popular control, though so much better than what is meant by modern democracy. Do the pages of history contain a parallel to the uncertainty and vacillation which perplexed the public councils of Athens, to the corruption, treachery, and want of all principle, which has made their whole administration, foreign and domestic, for ever infamous.

In America, indeed, we have an example of a people becoming a mighty and a prosperous nation under a democratic constitution. It would lead us much beyond our purpose to examine the workings of the democratic principle in the American Union - to inquire how far the prosperity of that great nation is owing to the inherent energy, industry, and steadfastness of purpose of the Anglo-Saxon race, and to the unbounded extent of fertile land which is on every side open to the enterprise of their people to inquire how far their prosperity has been in spite of their institutions, instead of being aided by them, and how many and how great are the defects both in their public administration and social character, which is obviously referrible to the form of government under which they live. The most favorable and dispassionate authorities on the American constitution, M. De Tocqueville, for example, speak universally of the "tyrant majority;" of the overpowering influence of this tyranny, not only on political affairs, but on the administration of justice, on the conduct of magistrates and jurors, nay, even on the very minds of men, so much so, that there is no civilized country where the freedom of thought, speech, or action, is so little permitted or understood, unless it be in the most abject submission to the omnipotent will of the "tyrant majority." And in estimating the value of the American constitution, we must not lose sight of the fact, that it has not yet had to struggle against a heavy amount of debt, such as all old countries have inherited—and, by the way, the conduct of the Pennsylvanian State in repudiating their obligations, to the shame and reproach of every right-minded American, is as forcible an example as could be given of the irresistible sway of the "tyrant majority." Neither, above all, must we forget, that it has never had to contend against the great difficulty of all other governments -a large, half-employed pauper population; the position of America to which we have adverted, enables every man to earn his livelihood; the spirit and enterprise of the people impel them to avail themselves of it. The

classes, the taxation, the tumults and discontent, which take their rise from the poverty of the lower classes of the country, are, in America, from its territorial position, wholly unknown: against this great evil their government has never yet had to contend. And long, we most fervently trust, may it continue so; and may we never forget, that when the famine pressed heavily on our land, the kindly voice of sympathy rose universally from our American brethren, throughout the whole extent of their wide domains, and the full hand of their abundance was eagerly and effectively stretched forth to aid us in our distress.

But surely any chance of success in this perilous enterprise of democratic government-any hope of escaping the miseries of anarchy, and being driven to take refuge under the yoke of despotism, is to be derived from the purity of principle, from the simpleness of taste, from the fixedness of purpose of the people by whom the attempt is made. And how is France prepared in these particulars? France, a nation to whom, with comparatively few exceptions, principle, honor, and truth are unknown; France, the only nation upon record in whom unquestionable gallantry and courage are found to consist with a total absence of generous or chivalrous sentiment- a people to whom every incident in life to be of interest must be dramatic — who seek in the minutest trifles of their existence to produce an effect, to create a sensation — with whom action and enterprise are valueless if it be not beheld and applauded — who know not, and are incapable of appreciating or of admiring, the self-denying heroism, the power of truth, which constrains an upright man to abide with desperate fidelity by the cause which he believes to be right, and by the faith which he has solemnly plighted. These are serious accusations to make against a whole people; and grievous would be our offence if we were to make them falsely or inconsiderately. But we think the time has come when these countries should resist the French mania with which, for the last twenty years, we have been invaded. It is time to put a stop to that practical fraternity which the French have recently proclaimed, and their construction of which they have so characteristically illustrated by driving our laborers pellmell out of their country, without money or clothing, by threatening to rise en masse against the mill-owners of Havre and Boulogne, if an English laborer were found within their walls; and this, too, while we hear of no such manifestation of "fraternity" towards any other foreign laborers in France. Our government should no longer cringe to that of France, and be submis

sively led by her to interfere, to our own great discredit, against the rights and interests of the other nations of Europe. We did so when we cooperated with France in establishing revolutionary thrones in Portugal and in Spain, in both instances in direct violation of the settled law of succession in each country. We did so yet more flagrantly when, in coöperation again with France, we dismembered the kingdom of Holland, and established the revolutionary throne of Belgium. If there was one article more distinctly guaranteed than another, by the treaty of 1815, it was the integrity of the kingdom of Holland. Those treaties the present provisonal government of France have declared to be a nullity, and not binding on their new-fangled republic; but, in truth, no government of France ever practically regarded them when it suited their interests to do otherwise. If there be in the foreign policy of Europe an admitted and unquestionable axiom, it is the vital importance of

maintaining a powerful and independent kingdom at the north of France, between France and the ocean; and yet England, forgetful alike of policy and treaties, joins her humiliated navy (with the glorious recollections of the Nile and Trafalgar in its memory) with that of France, and the fleets of France and of England united blockade the Scheld, to dismember the kingdom of our ancient ally. And what has England gained by this truckling to France? Hear the authority of the illustrious statesman who is now taking refuge in our country—he who, perhaps, of all living foreigners is best disposed to England, though, of course, giving to his own country his first duty. In 1846, M. Thiers took occasion to attack the foreign policy of France; and what was M. Guizot's reply? Why this "On every part of the globe," he said, "where the policy of France and England had been at variance, in Africa, Spain, and Greece, France had fully and boldly followed the course pointed out by her interests"--and night we not suppose that it is somewhat in derision that he goes on-"without compromising in the least the friendly relations between the two governments, thanks to their intimacy."

Why this submissive spirit on the part of England should exist, it would lead us much from our present purpose to inquire. We refer it to the ascendancy which the monied interest has of late years acquired, to the dread of war, to the determination to hold by the most powerful, to the poverty of spirit, to the feebleness of principle, and to the abject selfishness which must ever characterize the councils of a state acting under such influence. Let England maintain the independent position, and assert the right of self-action that becomes a great

nation; or if, in the mystery of diplomacy, it be necessary that states, like weak-minded men, should have their confidants, in the name of truth let England seek for such in nations of the same character and principles as herself; but not in licentious, anarchical, and infidel France.

France is essentially anarchical. M. Guizot knows the people well; his habits of profound study and calm philosophical research well qualify him to be an authority on this or any subject of which he writes; his genius would do credit to any people, and his consistency does as much as that of any individual man can do, to throw a gleam of virtue over the dark mass of corruption in which the public men of France, for the last fifty years have lived, and moved, and had their being.

M. Guizot thus writes, in 1838, in Le Revue Francais :

that preys on it is the enfeeblement of authority I do not say of force, which makes itself to be obeyed; the depositories of public power never had more force, perhaps never had so much: but of authority recognized beforehand, as a principle, and felt as a right, which has no need to recur to force; of that authority before which and which speaks with command, not as reposing the mind bends, without the heart being abased,

"As far as the state is concerned, the malady

on fear, but as based on necessity."

This "enfeeblement of authority" naturally flowed from the excesses of the first Revolution, and the total abolition of every institution to which (when not perverted by abuse from its legitimate action) the nature of man voluntarily yields reverence—the destruction of the nobility, the overthrow of the church, the precaution which was taken to guard against any legitimate local influence, or conservative principle growing up in the state by controlling the disposition of property, making it compulsory on a father to divide his property, both real and personal, among all his children, or as the law now is, leaving him but one share to dispose of, so that if a father has four sons, he has a disposing power over but one fifth of his property. The licentious character of their press, the degraded condition of their clergy, wretched pensioners of the state, and the mad impulse which was given to the cravings of plebeian ambition—these things have sown and nurtured in France the seed of the revolutionary spirit which makes all chance of constitutional government, as we understand the term, hopeless, and gives the French people no refuge from anarchy but under the iron despotism of a Napoleon or a Louis Philippe. Take into account, too, their total inexperience of any thing like habits of administration of affairs,

and the catalogue of their disqualifications for | sons, out of a population of thirty-five millions, popular government is complete; no municipalities, no corporations, no associations throughout the whole of France; the entire country, thirtyfive millions of people, submitting unresistingly to the dominion of a corrupt and luxurious capital.

This subjection of the whole country to the capital, which is so extraordinary a feature in France, is owing to the unparalleled extent to which the system of centralization is carried, to the absence of commercial or other profitable pursuits, which creates such a craving for government employments, and to the prodigious extent to which the government interferes in the general economy of the country. In France, the army, the navy, all excise and custom-house officers, the police, all the legal functionaries throughout the departments, all the magistracy of the departments, mayors and their deputies, prefects and sub-prefects, all are appointed by the government. So is every one in connection with the post-office, the masters of all the schools, the superintendents of all the roads and bridges, every postilion and post-horse that travels on the roads, and every laborer who breaks the stones with which they are repaired, all are appointed by the state. The ministers of religion of every Christian persuasion, and, since the Revolution of 1830, even of the Jews, are salaried by the state; the theatres are supported by the state, and houses of infamous resort are licensed by the state and under its control. So that for every thing the Frenchman is referred directly to the government — for protection from abroad, for discipline at home, for instruction when young, for employment when he grows up, for the excitements of dissipation while he is living, and for the soothing consolations of religion as he dies. The direction of all these various departments of the social economy rests with the supreme authority in Paris; and let a Parisian mob, or a Napoleon, or Louis Philippe, but seize the Hotel de Ville, and the telegraph, and he has France. All the functionaries and employès of the state, all their wide-spread influence, which covers France as with a mesh - all spring from Paris.

And if anything were still wanting to account for the dominion of the capital over the whole empire, it is to be found in the wretched condition of the rural population of France, occasioned by the operation of the law as to the distribution of property, of which we have spoken. In France, by reason of this law of infinite subdivision, there are now no less than five millions and a half of distinct proprietary families; averaging each family at four persons, there are, consequently, twenty millions of per

dependent, to a greater or less degree, upon landed property. The whole area of France is about one hundred and twenty millions of acres. There are few or no manufacturing or commercial towns to absorb the population — with the exception of Lyons, Bourdeaux, and Marseilles, none of any account; so that from the combined operation of this law against accumulation, and the nature of the industrial resources of the country, it has come to this, that comparatively few of this proprietary enjoy a revenue of more than four hundred a-year, while nearly one half of them are seized of estates of the annual value of two pounds!

Doubtless these small rural properties are the scene of much industry and frugality. We make no doubt, too, that there exists here a considerable share of devotional feeling. But the labor which is forced on the French by the necessities of their condition, is no more an evidence of industrious habits, than the piety which is only found when they are out of the way of temptation, is an evidence of a pure religion. Let the Frenchman acquire but the smallest independence—give him what will purchase one of the government life annuities, which are so common in France, and he is away at once to the capital, and there plunges, with the ardour of one who has at length found his congenial element, into the whirl and excitement of the dissipated throng.

There could not, possibly, be a greater mistake than that of supposing that the recent Revolution in France was any sudden outburst of caprice, or that it sprung from any impulsive assertion of popular right against an arbitrary act of the government. The social condition of France has, in fact, left that unhappy people but a choice of evils—either the restraint of despotism, or the anarchy and tyranny of democracy. The most cursory review of their history will satisfy any one, that from the first revolution to the last, the self-same republican spirit has been incessantly in action, diverted, indeed, under Napoleon, by the excitement, and dazzled by the glory of his foreign wars. Exhausted and dejected by the dreadful reverses which preceded the restoration of the Bourbons, it slumbered for a while; but gradually gaining strength, it could only be curbed in the latter years of the reign of Louis, and while his successor continued on the throne by the arbitrary assertion of power by these monarchs, in open and direct defiance of the charter which the first had granted on his restoration, and which both had sworn to uphold, breaking out at last at the revolt of the barricades, it hurled Charles from the throne; and partly by accident, partly by intrigue, its

but it is not, perhaps, sufficiently borne in mind. that the king came down to this national assembly, and there made offer of a bill of rights, which embraced every concession that could possibly have been required - every requisite for a well-regulated freedom. This was in June, 1789. Even Mirabeau acknowledged "that the concessions made by the king were sufficient for the public good, if," he added, however, “the presents of despotism were not always dangerous."

late occupant was seated in his place. But the | ing. The proceedings of this body, and how acts of the elder Bourbons were constitutional, the national assembly became self-formed from the yoke of Napoleon was light, as compared the states-general, is matter of familiar history; with that which Louis Philippe was obliged to resort to, in order to control this revolutionary frenzy. It had now recovered from the reverses of 1815, and had gained daring by its triumph of 1830. Under the amended charter of 1830, to which Louis Philippe swore allegiance, popular rights were asserted to an extent which, although but in conformity with our notions of constitutional freedom, and adapted to the habits and principles of the people of these countries, were yet, with the democratical principles of France, altogether inconsistent with the existence of the monarchy, or indeed of any controlling power whatsoever. "The king is to reign, but not to govern," was the avowed and proclaimed maxim; and Louis Philippe soon found that he had but to choose between throwing up the reins of power altogether, or straining them to the uttermost; he strained them until they broke.

The causes of popular discontent which led to the first revolution were as unquestionably righteous and just, as the subsequent excesses were infamous. The entire exemption of the nobles and clergy from all the burdens of the state, the exclusive monopoly by these privileged orders of all its emoluments, the intolerable pressure of an embarrassed government on the resources of the third estate, with an unlimited power of taxation in the crown, was an amount of injustice which could not, nor should not have been endured. Had the king or his ministers had but the common sense, or had the nobles and clergy had but the common justice to reform these crying abuses, the subsequent horrors of the revolution would have been averted, and the seeds of anarchy never would have taken root in the soil of France; but long familiarity, with injustice, as with any other crime, diminishes our perception of its enormity; and the privileged orders, even if they saw the oppression which they occasioned, were too much reduced in circumstances and condition by the profligate expenditure of their habits of life, to be able to forego any advantages, or to waive any exemptions to which they might be entitled. Meantime the third estate was growing powerful by commerce; and being oppressed and deserted by those who ought to have been their natural directors, they readily gave ear to the doctrines of Voltaire, Rousseau, and other writers of that revolutionary school. The extreme financial embarrassments of the state at length compelled the minister to convene the states-general- a body to which, for nearly 150 years, the crown had never dreamt of appeal

But the people had now tasted of the cup of power, and were resolved to drain it to the dregs. Never having enjoyed a rational or regulated liberty, they could not moderate nor direct their newly-acquired license; they began, moreover, to discover that there was no physical force by which they could be restrained. This, after all, is the great secret of all the French revolutions; on this the mob of Paris and the revolutionists of France can at all times safely calculate. In the hour of danger, when riot and violence are at their height, the French soldiery uniformly, and as of course, fling all notions of allegiance, discipline, and military obligation to the winds, and join with the rioters. The 100,000 troops who were in Paris last month, but facilitated the objects of the revolutionists. It is, we presume, for this most laudable and patriotic trait that the French soldiery are now rewarded with the elective franchise (and surely a more daring experiment than that of making the standing army of the country a deliberative body for to that it comes-it never before entered into the brain even of M. Arago, himself, renowned as he is for a scientific experimentalist, to attempt). Napoleon alone, by the mastery of his military genius, was able to subdue the spirit of defection in the troops, and to make them efficient against the populace; but this was the exception to the rule. In 1789, the monarchy was lost solely by the defection of the troops. The king had resolved on vigorous measures; and had he but have been able to curb the popular tumult, and carried out firmly and liberally the measures of salutary reform to which he had pledged himself in the assembly, the Revolution would have been averted; but the household troops revolt-the troops of the line to a man refuse to act-the. veterans of the Hotel des Invalides seize it for the people — the army join with the rioters in the storming of the Bastile. "This is revolt," said the king to the gentleman who brought him the intelligence. "Sire," replied the other, "it is a revolution."

« PoprzedniaDalej »