their theory, was it a wise one ? Do not we know that every man is under the influence- not of the circumstances which placed him in a particular station-but of the circumstances resulting from the situation in which he is placed. Give a man rank and power, he will endeavour to preserve that rank and power; it matters not how he obtained it. If there be in his origin difficulties to overcome, it is to his origin that he will be perpetually opposed. The veriest schoolboy in politics and in history might see at once--that the life of a prince sprung from a popular convulsion, would be passed in struggling against popular concessions. Here he may do well to yield, there to resist — but to resist he will somewhere be obliged, to yield he will always be required. The nation will be unruly under him, and you must govern an unruly nation as, if you are a skilful rider, you will

govern an unruly horse—you will not dare to lay the reins upon his neck, but as you pat his crest you will play with his bridle; if you give him his head, or if you pull at his mouth, it is neither force nor fear that will restrain him-he will run away with you.

The system of the present king of the French must be a system of repression, for the expectations which he excited are extravagant: but it


may be a syster of granting much in order to obtain the power of refusing more: if he refuse everything, if he pull too hard--but - I am about to recur to my simile of the unruly horse.

It now only remains to me to say that in the two questions which arose respecting the throne, first, whether it should be declared vacant on account of the absence of the family of Charles the Tenth ; secondly, whether Louis Philippe should begin the new monarchy or take a title which would connect him with his predecessors — a negative was given to the more moderate party, and so far the commencement of another era was undoubtedly proclaimed. A reference to the charta as it was and as it is, forms the best conclusion to this part of my work.

[merged small][ocr errors]



Two parties during the Three Days - A third party –

Natural consequences of their union - In order to understand the policy of the present Government, we must perpetually refer to the policy which presided over its creation - In creating the Government, the French should have considered that its course was prescribed for at least ten years - What the present King's Government was likely to do, what it was not likely to do — Its policy — The persons who can best maintain it on that policy - The Doctrinaires Ministry of Lafitte, of M. Périer, of Duc de Broglie - Of Soult, of Gérard — M. Thiers — His character

- He the best person to maintain the present Government What are the difficulties in maintaining it? - Its necessary unpopularity - The dangers of that unpopularity- Its safety in its gaining time.

HAVING carried the political events of France down from the first to the second revolution, I would now take a brief view of the condition of the new monarchy, and of the state of the parties which have existed under it; reserving to myself the opportunity of returning to the subject, when, having made more familiar to the reader the manners, the character, the influences, the institutions, and the men of this country, I may take a broader, a bolder, and a more satisfactory view of its future destiny.

It is evident from what I have already said, that the revolution from the first of the three days contained two parties -- those who felt strongly, and those who reasoned calmly. The first joined it with the desire to overthrow a tyrannical government, the second with the hope to prevent present confusion. The first, while the conflict was still uncertain, was for declaring the ordonnances illegal, and placing themselves at the head of the people; while the second were for renouncing a resistance by force, and for treating with Charles X. So, after the treaty of Rambouillet, the one was, as I have said, for beginning the new race with a new title: the other, for connecting the monarch whom the people had chosen with the long line that had reigned by the divine

grace of God.

The natural bent of these two parties would have led them to diverge even wider than they did. The enthusiasts for liberty would have taken the republic — the advocates of order would willingly have declared for Henry V. But there was a third party -- the personal party of the Duc d'Orléans, which appealed to the sympathies of the republicans “to the ideas of the legitimists. To the first it said, I fought with you in the days of July, and I propose to you the soldier of Jemmapes. To the second it said - the Duc d'Orléans is a Bourbon, and remember the revolution of 1788. In this manner the revolution which had been commenced and continued without a plan, was constituted and confirmed with one. Its natural consequences were

vast concessions to popular opinion in the moment of passion. The triumph of the party in favour of order and tranquillity, when tranquillity and order were restored. And, lastly--since in order to overthrow the former government, the personal friends of the Duc d'Orléans had been obliged to side rather with those who were for destroying than with those who were conserving

- they would, when the principles of the present reign became conservative, be obliged to separate, either from their party or their patron.

In order to have a proper idea of the present king's policy, it is necessary to be perpetually referring to the policy by which his election was dictated. Very few of the French understand their own revolution. They cry out against the “juste milieu.” Their revolution, as I have said, was the “ juste milieu.” Louis


« VorigeDoorgaan »