The Press. — London, England, 1854-06-10 00:00:00

1 JUNE 10, 1854. yittratart. History of Europe from the Fall of Napoleon in 1815 to the Accession of Louis Napoleon in 1852. By Sir Archibald Alison, Bart., D.C.L. London: Blackwood and Sons. WE congratulate Sir A. Alison on the appear ance of a volume very superior in literary merit to its two predecessors. Critical in genuity may still detect a Scotticism here and there, an awkward metaphor, or an ill-timed phrase; but the historian's style is in general more unpretending, more simple, and there fore more pleasing. In one respect Sir Archibald is honourably distinguished from every other living historian, with perhaps the single exception of Lord Mahon. His im partiality is remarkable; he does full justice to the arguments of all parties ; while defend ing his own conclusions he never misrepre sents or overlooks those of an opponent; nor is there any work in existence dealing with the events of the present century which may more safely t e mado a textbook of politico historical study. Let those who doubt the justice of our opinion read carefully the chapters which relate to the reign of Charles X. of France—his good intentions, his weak nesses, his illegal acts, and consequent over throw. They are the most interesting in the volume; and we doubt whether a revolution embodying the antagonism of monarchical and democratic ideas was ever before described with so entire an absence of prejudice. . . Enthusiastically received by tile Parisians, Charles seemed inclined to justify and repay their affection by a liberal system of adminis tration. His first act was to abolish the censorship of the press ; a step perhaps in evitable, certainly in English eyes wise, but which increased the coming troubles of his reign. Great efforts were made to restore ecclesiastical influence, which the revolu tionary war had well-nigh destroyed. Jesuit colleges sprung up everywhere; the sanctity of the Court recalled the memory of Louis XIV. in his later days ; the Minister df War exerted himself to revive a spirit of religion in the army, and with more apparent success than might have been expected ; the extreme religious party numbered 130 members in the Chamber of Deputies; and, what was perhaps of more importance than all the rest, the Minister of Public Worship gave his avowed support to this powerful body. Meantime the people, though indifferent, and inclined to laugh, were not hostile. Material prosperity prevailed everywhere; agriculture and manu factures flourished equally; even the press, though naturally hostile to clerical power, forbore for a while to attack the Government to which it owed its freedom. This happy state of peace did not long'continue. An ill judged measure, originating with the War department, which placed on half-pay nearly every distinguished general of the empire, first aroused popular suspicion. The gift of forty millions sterling to the emigrants, although probably (apart from considerations of justice) a wise mode of purchasing the sup ports of what would otherwise have been a dis contented faction, was viewed by the Liberals and Bonapartists with deep dissatisfaction. Even the clergy, who were not included in the grant, gave it a sullen and reluctant support. They were pacified by a stringent law against sacrilege, absurdly severe in some of its pro visions, which passed both Chambers by large majorities, yet contrary to the public feeling. A far more serious attack on republican ideas was the attempted restoration (1826) of a modified law of primogeniture. It failed to obtain support even in the Chamber of Peers, where it was first introduced, and its defeat became the signal for general rejoicing. Well would it have been for the King's interests — perhaps for those of France—if the warning thus given had been accepted. But his ad visers disregarded all counsels of expediency, Supported by the imagined necessity of main taining a great principle. Before the com mencement of the year 1827 it had become obvious to all lookers-on that the contest between Church and people must be decided by some conclusive trial of strength. The occa- THE PRESS. sion was not long wanting. Among the op ponents of the ultramoutanists no power was so formidable as that of the press ; to destroy it, they argued, had become a necessity; and they went to work the shortest way. The following was the measure forced by them on the Cabinet, and actually introduced into the Chamber of Deputies : In the bill brought forward by Government it was pro posed that all writings of twenty pages and under should be deposited with the censors five days before publication; if published before the expiry of this period, the entire edition was liable to be confiscated, and a fine of 3,000 francs (1201.) imposed on the publisher. A duty of one franc for the first sheet, and ten sous for each sheet after, was imposed on every publication below twenty pages. Speeches in either Chamber, pastoral letters, and journals appearing only once in two months, which by the exist ing law were obliged to find caution, were relieved from these enactments. The proprietors of journals were to be the parties against whom actions founded on delinquencies against the state or individuals were to be directed, ►nd no company for conducting a journal was to be legal if con sisting of more than five persons. Fines might be im posed from 2,000 to 20,000 francs ( 801. to 8001.) A more unfortunate attempt could scarcely have been made. The result was foreseen even by the unwilling authors of the measure. Yet these, though they had miscalculated their strength, were actually not far from suc ceeding. The bill passed, in a mutilated form ; but the triumph was equally insulting and idle, for Ministers durst not enforce the provisions of their own enactment. The most remarkable circumstance attending the de bates on this subject was that while Chateau briand, Villemain, and Lacretelle protested against the proposed repression, the names of Cuvier and La Place were found ranged on the side of Government. From the period of this bold assault on popular liberty the fall of the monarchy may be dated. Its results made themselves early manifest. The Duke of Rochefoucauld, a man more than respectable by his talents, his social position, and historic name, had voted against Government. All his offices and honours, the reward of a long life usefully spent, were taken from him in one day. His death followed shortly : the Liberals seized on the opportunity, and endeavoured to grace his funeral by a public demonstration. This was resisted—a riot ensued—the affair was noised over all France—and in the hands of skilful agitators served to revive disturb ances which time might have otherwise ap peased. The next event of moment was even more significant. Anxious to regain popularity, which he highly valued, yet blind to the cause of its decrease, Charles appointed the 12th of April, '27, for a review of the National Guard. As might have been foreseen, cries of "Vive le Roil" were mingled with expressions of disapprobation, which the Monarch's pre sence could not suppress. " I come here," he exclaimed in anger, "to receive homage, " and not lessons ;" but his words pro duced no effect. The demonstration failed to produce its intended result : the royal party returned home dejected and discomfited. It was the original purpose of Charles to take no further notice of what had passed ; but evil counsels again prevailed. A cabinet was sum moned in haste, it sat late and long, short time was allowed for deliberation, and in the morning appeared an ordinance disbanding the Guard. It does not seem that in this step the King exceeded his constitutional power, nor was any resistance attempted, but the folly of the act could not be defended; and, as if to defy the very enemies whom they created, Ministers did not even insist on disarming the forCe which they ignominiously displaced. Rarely in human affairs has there been wit nessed such a combination of audacity and apathy—rarely have such dangers been con fronted with so little forethought or fear; and this remark applies with equal force to every succeeding step taken by the Bourbons until their final overthrow in 1830. The censorship was re-established by ordinance ; seventy-six new peers were created—all, of course, in the interest of the Church—a dissolution was tried; preparations began on both sides for the coming struggle. In November the elections came on ; they were attended with disturb ances, especially in Paris ; blood ran freely ; and it was noted that the troops of the line, when summoned to act against the people, showed signs of wavering. On summing up 543 the results the Liberals were found to have gained ground, yet not so much so but that the King had still a majority. But what the Opposition could not effect was done by in ternal differences. The Ministry had been founded on a compromise ; it contained many members who had come reluctantly into the violent measures of their colleagues ; these were now displaced, and the memorable Government of Prince Polignac succeeded to power after a brief endeavour to compromise matters by the appointment of a more consti tutional Premier. The Prince, who played so memorable a part in the great drama of 1830, is well, though perhaps too favourably, portrayed in this volume. It is said that " he aimed at " securing for France a constitution similar to " that which for a century and a half had given " prosperity and glory to Great Britain." All the eloquence and talent of France was directed against him, and through him against the Court. Lafayette, in a kind of triumphal progress through the south of France, stirred up men's minds by that oratory in which he excelled, and whose effect was enhanced by the recollection of his services and sufferings. Thiers and Guizot, not yet rivals, argued and declaimed in their respective journals. Demo cratic societies were organised in all the great towns, openly abetted by the leading statesmen of opposition. Of independent members, Berryer, when the Chambers met, alone sup ported the Ministry, which he nevertheless re fused to join when place was offered as the reward of his exertions. The vast power of French journalism never made itself more felt than at this crisis. Metternich, in an epigram which has become historical, said, " In Austria " I would be minister ; in Paris I would be " a journalist." The leading Liberal organs commanded a sale, jointly, of nearly 40,000 ; an equal number of their rivals circulated scarcely more than 17,000 copies ; and the disparity of talent equalled that of numbers. Thus influenced, and strong in the sense of popular support, the Opposition were not long in bringing matters to a decisive issue. In their first vote they gained a majority of 40- 221 against 181 ; and it was found that, in a house of 402 members, the Polignac Ministry could not count more than 160 certain sup porters. Still they persevered ; the Chamber was prorogued ; and, the Algerine war having apparently created a favourable diversion in the public mind, a second dissolution was re solved on. Its result was, as might have been expected, the defeat of many Ministerial can didates and an increase of the Liberal strength . No option remained except to conquer or to submit. The former alternative was chosen. The charter, vaguely worded, contained an article which seemed to invest the Monarch with dictatorial power in extreme emergencies. It was determined to put this article in force; and (July 26th) the famous ordinances ap peared. By them the liberty of the ress was suspended; the Chamber once mor issolved ; the existing electoral body disfranc ised and replaced by another on a different basis. They amounted, in fact, to a revolution; and, since submission could scarcely be anticipated, they involved the necessity of an appeal to physical force. But that physical force was itself want ing : the garrison of Paris had not been strengthened ; the troops of the line could not be relied on ; no steps were taken to prevent the citizens from arming; even ammunition had not been supplied in sufficient quantities. The result need not here be told. Within three weeks Charles was in England and Louis Philippe on the throne. Admitting the ille gality of the King's acts—acknowledging their folly, and not deeming the existence of equally unconstitutional designs on the other side a valid apology—we still think, with Sir Archi bald, that the overthrow of the monarchy might have been arrested had due precautions been taken to guard against the outbreak which all knew was at hand. We have alluded to the want of military preparation. Another obvious omission was the leaving at liberty the revolutionary chiefs. They were known— they were unprotected. Force had been re solved on. It was too late to profess any scruples about violating the constitution ; yet for two days they were suffered to meet unmo lested, nor was any attempt made to arrest , them until Paris had then in arms. It may