« EdellinenJatka »
not been able altogether to extinguish. The Revolutionists were victorious in the strife ; they got a king of their own choosing, and a government of their own formation ; their journalists were made Ministers of State, and the system for which they contended was established ; and what was the consequence ? Why, that out of the triumph of the Liberals has arisen such turbulence, anarchy, and wretchedness, as rendered it absolutely necessary for the Liberals themselves to re-enact Prince Polignac's Ordinances with still more arbitrary clauses, and support them by a bloody fight in the streets of Paris, and the array of “a greater number of armed men,” as Sarrans tells us, “than combated Prussia or Russia at Jena or Austerlitz." This result is decisive of the queston ; it is the experimentum crucis which solves the doubt. It proves that Polignac and Charles were correct in their view of the terrible nature of the power they had to combat ; that they foresaw, two years before they occurred, what the progress of events was destined to bring forth, took the measures best calculated to prevent them, and erred only by not duly estimating the magnitude of the physical strength which their adversaries had at their disposal.
On this subject we cannot do better than quote the able and eloquent observations of the Viscount Saint Chamans:
“The Ordinances of July, and the sedition which followed them, were no more the cause of the Revolution of July, than the dismissal of M. Necker, and the storming of the Bastille, were the cause of the Revolution of 1789. I see in both these events the first acts of a Revolution, of which the causes had existed long before, but not the origin of that Revolution itself. You might just as well say that the battle of Arbela was the cause of the ruin of Darius : as if, when the enemy had invaded your territory, and penetrated to the heart of your dominions, you had any chance of safety by laying down your arms and submitting to his terms-as if it was not better to risk a struggle which would save you, if it was gained, and renders you no worse than you were before, if it is lost. Such was the position of Charles X. He is unjustly accused of having committed suicide; but there are many others to whom the reproach can with more reason be applied.
“Louis XVIII. committed suicide on his race, when he caused his Ministers, in 1817, to bring forward a democratic law for the election of Deputies to Parliament, drawn in such a manner as gave little chance of success to the real friends of the monarchy, and when he created sixty Peers to hinder the reparation of that fatal step when it was yet time.
“ The Chamber of Peers committed suicide, when, with a childish desire for popularity, they joined themselves to the Opposition (an unnatural union) to overturn the Minister, who stood out as the last defender of monarchical and aristocratic principles, and to give a triumph to liberal
ideas. They have received their reward in the overthrow of the hereditary Peerage.
"They committed suicide, the Royalists of every shade and description, who enrolled themselves under the Liberal banners, from whence, after the triumph was completed, they were ignominiously expelled.
“The courtiers committed suicide when they weakly joined the Liberals, not seeing that the principles of that party are inconsistent with their existence.
“The crowd of commercial and industrious persons committed suicide, when, become the soldiers and pioneers of Liberalism, they attacked with all their might, and finally overturned, that constitution which bad conferred such blessings on them, and prosperity on their country, and under which France had enjoyed prosperity without example.
“It is in the faults of these parties, in the situation of parties anterior to the Ordinances which resulted from these faults, that we must seek for the causes of the catastrophe, and not in the faults of Charles X. or his Ordi
It is evident that the event has not created the situation, but only brought it to light; that his sceptre did not fall in pieces at the first stroke, from being then for the first time assailed, but because the blow unfolded the rottenness of the heart, brought about by anterior causes."St Chamans, 3, 4.
Every word of this striking passage applies to our late changes; and demonstrates a coincidence between the march of revolution in the two countries, which is almost miraculous. At the distance of about ten years, our liberal Tories and revolutionary Whigs have followed the example of the Jacobins and Doctrinaires of France. While they were hastening down the gulf of perdition at a gallop, we followed at a canter, and have adopted every one of the steps which there rendered the downward progress of the Revolution irretrievable, and spread unheard-of misery through every part of France. We too have had royalists of every shade inclining to liberal ideas ; and the courtiers entering into alliance with their enemies, and a crowd of commercial and manufacturing citizens combining to overturn the constitution under which they and their fathers had, not for fifteen, but for a hundred and fifty years, enjoyed unheard-of prosperity; and the Crown bringing forward a new and highly democratical system of election ; and the concurrence of the Peers forced by a threatened creation of sixty members. Having sown the same seed as the French, can we hope to reap a different crop? May Heaven avert from these realms the last and dreadful catastrophe to which these measures have led on the other side of the Channel !
With regard to the conduct of Charles X. after ascend
ing the throne, the following account is given by the same writer :
" The goodness of Charles X., his love for his people, his beneficence, his affability, his piety, his domestic virtues, doubtless have placed his private character beyond the reach of attack. Let us see whether his public conduct justifies any more the accusations of his enemies.
“On ascending the throne, he resisted the natural desire of giving the direction of affairs to his political confidants, and, sacrificing bis private affections to his public duty, he retained the administration of his deceased brother who had raised France to so bigh a pitch of happiness. When, shortly after, public opinion, misled by the press, became weary of the prosperity of France, and overturned in its madness the Ministers who had restored its prosperity within, and regained its consideration without, did Charles X. make use of any coup d'état to maintain in his government the principles which he deemed necessary to the salvation of France ? No. He yielded : he sacrificed all his own opinions, he changed his ministers and his system, and in good faith embraced the new course which was prescribed to him. He conceded everything that was demanded. As the reward of the many sacritices made to opinion, he was promised a peaceable, beloved, and cherished existence. But bitter experience soon taught him that what was conceded passed for nothing, or rather was considered only as the means of obtaining fresh concessions; that the party which he hoped to have satisfied, multiplied one demand on another, moved incessantly forward from session to session, and evidently would not stop till it had fallen with him into the gulf of democracy; that public opinion that is to say, its tyrant, the press—was soon as much irritated at the new Ministers as it had been at those which preceded them ; that his government was harassed by as great obstacles as before ; that the sacrifice made was therefore useless, and that the system on which, against his better judgment, he had entered, instead of being followed by the advantages which had been promised, was in fact precipitating him into those evils, the foresight of which had at first inclined him to a contrary system.
“Charles X., confirmed by that attempt in his first ideas, reverted then to his own opinions, and the men who shared them; and, whatever calumny may assert to the contrary, neither those men nor those opinions were contrary to the Charter. The real violators of the Charter were to be found in the majority of the Chamber of Deputies; in the 221 who refused to respect the constitutional right of the Monarch to choose bis Ministers, and who were resolved to force him to dismiss them, though they could not allege a single illegal act of which they had been guilty. And, in truth, their administration was perfectly legal and constitutional, down to the promulgation of the Ordinances, on which opinions are so much divided, and which necessity alone dictated to prevent the crown being taken off the head of the Sovereign.
" Let the truth, then, be proclaimed boldly : Prior to the Ordinances, Charles X. merited reproach as little in his public as his private life. I may defy bis most implacable enemies and his daily libellers, who have with such fury attacked a fallen victim, to point out one real grievance, or single illegal act of his whole reign. Are there any more reproaches to make to the family who surrounded him ? You will find, on the contrary, in them an assemblage of all the virtues, of the noblest courage in the extremities of misfortune. If these virtues, these qualities, the inheritance of a poble race, are lost to us by our ingratitude, they are at least springing up again in another generation ; they are yet growing for France." St Chamans, 7, 9.
In this particular, our own experience of the illustrious
exiles in this city, fully corroborates the testimony of the French Royalists. Never, in truth, did simple unobtrusive virtue work a more surprising change in favour of any family than that of Charles X. did in the opinion of this city. When he first arrived here, he was regarded by the great majority of the citizens, deluded by the Revolutionary press, as a bloodthirsty tyrant, who took a pleasure in cutting down the people by discharges of grape-shot, and was intent only on the most arbitrary proceedings. His followers took no pains whatever to disabuse the public mind ; not a pamphlet, nor a newspaper paragraph, issued from Holyrood ; they lived in retirement, and were known only to a limited circle by the elegance of their manners, and to all by the extent and beneficence of their charities, and the sincere and unaffected discharge of their religious duties. By degrees the mask placed by the Revolutionists dropped from their faces; instead of a bloodthirsty tyrant, a beneficent Monarch, bravely enduring the storms of adversity, was discovered ; and before the Royal Family departed for the Continent, they had secured the interest, and won the affection, of all classes of the citi
“Were, then," continues M. St Chamans, " the Ordinances the cause of the catastrophe which ensued? Yes ! if the Ordinances were useless-if the Throne and the Constitution were not in danger ; or if, though in danger, they could have been saved without a coup d'état. Not if they were necessary and unavoidable ; if the Throne, the Dynasty, the Constitution were about to perish; if the illegal attacks of the enemies of the Monarchy had left the King no other resource but a desperate effort. What signifies whether you perish of the operation, or the progress of the disease ?
“What was the situation of affairs at the epoch of the Ordinances ? On that depends the solution of the question.
“ The Chamber had been dissolved, because the majority was hostile ; the elections had sent back a majority still more numerous and hostile; the Chamber was to assemble on the 3d August.
“Charles X. could not govern France with that Chamber, but by composing a Ministry in harmony with the majority of its members ; that is, by assuming nearly the same men, who, after the 7th August, formed the Cabinet of Louis Philippe, and adopting the same system; for such a Ministry could not have existed a day without conceding the same democratic demands which were granted in the modified Charter of 7th August. We may judge, then, of the situation in which Charles X. would have been placed, by that in which we now see Louis Philippe. Now, if, in the short space of eighteen months, three Administrations have been overturned ; if the Throne itself is shaken-without authority, without force, without consideration-what must have been the fate of the royalty of Charles X.? If the Liberal party has acted in this manner toward a King whom they
regarded as their own-the darling of their own creation, and who by his conduct and his personal qualities possessed all the sympathies of the Revolutionary party; if, in spite of so many titles to their favour, that Prince has been obliged to throw them out two or three Administrations as morsels to devour ; if the journals, the caricatures, the tumults, have troubled his days and his nights ; if he has been obliged to deliver up to them even the arms of his race, and to degrade his own palace by effacing the fleur-de-lis; if they have thus treated their friend, their chosen Prince, their Citizen King, is it conceivable that they would have respected the crown of a King, the object of their hatred and jealousy, under which they would have incessantly trembled for concessions evidently extorted by force? Who can doubt that in these circumstances the Throne of Charles X. would have perished some months sooner than that of Louis Philippe ? Charles X., delivered over to a Ministry and a Chamber chosen from his enemies, would have found himself in nearly the same position as Louis XVI. in 1792. The result would have been the same. If, then, the danger of destruction awaited him equally, whichever course he adopted, it was far better to perish when combating like a King of France than in weakly yielding. An open strife offered at least the chance of safety ; concessions offered none."-St Chamans, 11, 12.
“And that necessity is a sufficient ground for such violent measures as coups d'état, cannot surely be denied by those whose subsequent conduct has been entirely founded on that basis. What authorised them to revolt against the authority of the King ? They answer, Necessity, in default of constitutional means of resistance. Who gave them a right to change the dynasty? They answer, Necessity. Who authorised them to overturn the Charter sworn to by all the French ? Necessity. Who authorised them to mutilate the Chamber of Peers, and to change into a liferent their rights of eternal property? They answer, Necessity. Necessity is their sole law : and, if necessity justifies measures evidently calculated to overturn, not only the throne but the constitution, with what reason can it be pretended that it does not justify a measure intended to preserve both ?"Ibid. 18, 19.
Saint Chamans gives an account of the real causes of the Revolution of July. These are, the democratic law of 5th February 1817, regarding the elections ; the licentious press ; and the centralisation of all the powers of France in Paris. This part of the subject is of the utmost importance, and is treated by our author with his usual ability. We shall endeavour to do justice to the subject in our translation.
“Two causes have, in an especial manner, precipitated the monarchy into the abyss from which there was no escape. These were—the license of the daily press, and the democratic law of elections. It was against them that the Ordinances were directed.
“I shall not here repeat what I have often advanced in regard to the periodical press. I shall only say, that ever since it has been unrestrained, it has engaged in a battle of life and death with the authority, whatever it was, which held the reins of government: that it stabbed to the heart the constitutional monarchy of 1791, established in the first fervour of the Revolution ; that it afterwards slew the Girondists who had overthrown the monarchy; that it itself was crushed on three different occasions, first by the Reign of Terror, then by the cannons of the 13th Vendemiaire, when