# The Royal Family of France (Henry)/Current History of France

III.
CURRENT HISTORY OF FRANCE.
The France of to-day has to be studied more in sorrow than anger. It is not in the interests of a dull and uncertain Republic that people may think it necessary to write; Europe cannot help seeing, and is not surprised to see, the impotent inaction of France on the field of Foreign Politics. Republics are doomed in Monarchical Europe before they are hatched, and they cannot escape their unavoidable fate; and the Third Republic of French Democrats, still lingering in 1882, is, on the one hand, kept alive by the mutual distrust, the deep internal divisions and secret rancour of Republicans, hating each other more than they love France. On the other hand, it lives owing a good deal to the thinness in the ranks of thoroughgoing patriots along the Monarchical lines, of Frenchmen both practical and strong-minded, of men manly, unworshippers of the rising "stars." Advanced Liberals, Democrats, and ultra-Democrats compose the Republic of France to-day; and this France is represented by a Government of fighting "patriots" whose sole "victories" to be recorded by History will be a wide campaign of lock-picking, official burglaries, and house-breaking, an intermittent warfare waged or permitted against all religion, monasteries, crosses and good people going to church. The whole political and parliamentary vigour of those bombastic Nationalists only expands, it would ​seem, where they discern weakness. The old good institutions and monuments of past time, still keeping Frenchmen united in mind and heart, are gradually and ruthlessly disappearing by the decrees of babyish officials; and the social superiority and refinement of the French nation are being replaced by a patent corruption of morality and literature, manners and social tone. Religion, with her devoted and unselfish ministers, missionaries, Sisters, and Jesuit Fathers even, is good only abroad, in Tunis, Madagascar, or the far East, where the inconsistent policy of a Government helpless at home regards them as the pioneers of French civilization!
A sad picture of the Benedictine Abbey at Solesmes, illustrious by so many literary reminiscences, is given by a correspondent from Paris. The expelled clergy are lodging where they can in the village, surrounded indeed by the love and respect of the people, but doomed to watch their Abbey and Church left to the mercy of only three gendarmes, who amuse themselves in rummaging all over the building, playing the grand organ, and letting the grass and fruit of the orchard rot away. In days gone by, it was a pleasure to watch the peaceful inhabitants of those cloisters at work. "Toiling at the cultivation of their vegetables, pruning their trees, they recall the heroic ages, when the sons of St. Benedict cleared the forests of Gaul and transplanted to Western soil the flowers of science and poetry exiled from the East." Still more touching are the memories of its great and learned Abbot, the famous Dom Guéranger, whose glorious works fittingly adorn the shelves of our best libraries in England. "And now thorns and briars have covered the profaned earth, and silence reigns over the habitation." These words might have been written in England in the days of Henry VIII., and not in the midst of so-called civilized France in the Nineteenth Century! International Democracy and Socialism are truly hard at work just now in rooting out in all countries every vestige of chivalrous, generous, and cultivated patriotism from the mind of younger men. Our own young men are being set very bad and most iniquitous examples indeed; and it is impossible to disguise, and it is foolish to ignore, that if we fall victims to the manifest attacks of Radical and anti-Monarchical men, we shall have, in large measure, to blame ourselves for our ​weak and unspirited conduct. Those men teach the younger generation to despise all that makes a nation's history glorious, all that was sacred and fertile and noble in its past, and by undermining all its reverence for old age, destroying its faith in the present and its hope in the future. The "Path of Shame" entered on in France by present Republicans is enough to cause the very shadow of a semi-Napoleonic Gambetta to disappear behind the woods of Ville d'Avray.
This inconsistency of the Republican so-called Politicians of France, is a revolting sight for a Frenchman open to common-sense and self-respect; but surely it is a not less comical one for foreigners. Meanwhile let us leave these Democrats and all birds of the same feather now advancing in Paris to the care of MM. Gambetta, Madier de Montjau, and Clémenceau. "Qui vivra, verra." No statesman, no Frenchman worthy of the name, could contemplate gladly the sure consequences of such a policy; and such maniacs would quickly be sent, by Englishmen at all events, to Coventry.
"Revenant à nos moutons."—The historian is concerned with the nation. Let us hope only that France may yet have the power to raise herself from the shameful entanglements, at home and abroad, into which she is forced daily by her weak and incapable Government in the present. All non-excitable and non-sensitive Frenchmen of influence in good society should give up all fine declamations, and set to the more reasonable duty of teaching their prejudiced (because ignorant) and thoughtless countrymen, the duty of refuting and dissipating the untrue, insulting, and outrageous teaching spread in the crowd by unfair, impudent and unpatriotic writers. It is the sacred duty of influential and experienced citizens in a land, it is their primary and binding task, to lead public opinion to the restoration and consecration of truth and justice, and vigorously to resist every tyrannous and unjust legislation passed by ambitious men who, deliberately and by dint of a mouldy policy, seduce the simple faith of the good, trade upon the animal instincts of the lower and least equitable classes of society, and selfishly sacrifice both the present and future of their native country in order to impose their intolerant, dishonest, immoral and repulsive opinions in the ​domains of either Religion, Politics, or Morals, forsooth causing one to doubt whether Europe be a civilized world in truth.
Professor James Bryce, M. P., presiding at the fifth Annual Meeting of the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings (June 9th, 1882), wisely maintained that we ought to cling with the utmost tenacity to what reminds us of the past and enables us to realize the historical continuity of our nation. A more true and seasonable hint could not be given. Amidst the conflicting attempts at social and economical Reforms to-day, the reasonable counsel from the learned Professor should prove useful to younger men, provided that we continue to see unshaken that disciplined loyalty which to citizens of a free State is a perfectly secure defence against the sinister designs, if such exist, of both social and foreign foes. Young men should not remain indifferent alike to the principles in which they profess to believe and the interests which they are taught to value; they should show themselves utterly able to understand the meaning which the warnings of History convey. Political wisdom, industry and determination are what our young men want; and they are not called upon to be supremely intelligent and able, so much as active and obedient. Most of us belong to the great army of strugglers. For all that, let us not drag on an aimless, helpless life, infinitely worse than death. Let us not rust out in the purlieus of a dull existence, leading—in the main deservedly so—to insensibility and decrepitude. In this era of fierce activity, young men generally do not make a bad show, but they want more power. We live in an age which requires of us that we should speak with absolute frankness, and younger men should not misapprehend the difficulties under which their elders labour when, whilst devoting themselves to the public good, they serve as a butt for the shafts of envy and ridicule from a despicable multitude actuated by ignorance or bribes.
The present situation in Europe, and indeed in the whole civilized world, requires that every good citizen should stand resolutely forth, and not shelter himself in ambiguity: for half truths are often whole errors and lies. Those who do not place their trust in hypocrisy and injustice must say so distinctly. Let us put aside ambiguity as to our own practice; let us not admit ​it from others. We would counsel our younger contemporaries to have the courage of their opinions; and when they stand up to do battle for justice and truth against evil, let them come to the front boldly.
The overwhelming responsibility of the future must be borne by the rising generation; this is a fact often insisted upon by our elders. The organs of lying and injustice are bold enough in their attacks: surely the least that can be required of our young champions, is that we should courageously stand to our convictions, to our deeds, to our loyalty in all that concerns our God, our Sovereign, our country that we should bow down in a true, practical and united homage before benefits conferred and rights acquired, before our Sovereign and Constitution; that we should uphold by word and deed the honour and the independence of our fatherland.
The truthful writer is, in these days, more than ever a signal for attack: his adversaries swoop down upon him in a body. He no sooner appears on the stage than an opponent walks in at the door, a second comes in at the window. Nevertheless, let us young writers, speak what our souls dictate; and let us ever welcome with respect the lively convictions springing* from the religious faith of good contemporaries: convictions which are not the specious sophistry of passions, obstinacy, self-interest. Let us too in our turn bear in mind that our adversaries may likewise be acting in good faith; in every Bedlam is there not some crack-brained lunatic who is firmly convinced that he is the sun?
Let us from time to time recall to mind, that a man is one of a family, each family is part of society and that society forms the State. Starting from the principle,—an ever-true one—that religious belief constitutes the State, society the family, and family constitutes the individual, we must admit that when faith has departed, individual morality becomes corrupt and baseness invades the public mind from the cottage to the Throne. This has been seen in all times, in all countries. When Athens listlessly strolled to the portico to listen to the philosophers, Alexander was able to rivet her chains securely. When degenerate Rome, weary of her gods, ceased to worship them, she fell prostrate before the vile Heliogabalus. When the Empire of ​the East, given up to discussion and sophistry, centred its interest in the schools, the Turk came, overthrew it, and cast it into the Bosphorus. When the Reign of Terror throned itself on the high altar of the cathedral of Paris, Notre-Dame, and in its impiety denounced Robespierre as "too devout," then the blood of citizens was shed in torrents by fellow-citizens. To-day the French Government believe in nothing, the administrators of the Government believe in nothing, the Parliament with their electors, most State-paid Professors and Schoolmasters with their pupils, believe in nothing. What do and will all those become? Sycophants, servants, slaves! Florian's Fable "Le Danseur de Corde et le Balancier" will remind these of an old, but better time that can be for France again, if they like.
To be fair, we gladly acknowledge that ignorance and prejudice have to a large extent abated in the Lower Middle classes of French society; also that the social forces, which were at work underground, unobserved and unchecked before the days of "woe and sorrow" of 1870–71, fortunately, are no longer hidden. They can be confronted in the open, and must doubtless be mastered and mercilessly strangled on the advent to power of a large growing generation of better, more energetic and practical young men, whose ideas about patriotism and duty towards one's native land should be taught them as a religion, but not as a lifeless and impotent simulacrum of a cosmopolitan patriotism of the vaguest character. Meanwhile, no one denies that great France, distrusted as she is (seemingly the most restless branch of the European family, and able to endure anything rather than a quiet life), an essentially Conservative and religious country, has lost, politically speaking, something of her old energy, dignity, and popularity. It is, we believe, easy to see that much of this springs from Republican administrations. Much springs from the immoderate talks and writings, the painfully intolerant and narrow policy, and often no less ridiculous blunders of advanced Liberals. This is so, but much more is really due to the weakness of Republican executives. These administrations, indeed, are responsible for the calamitous success of national evils. But this anywhere, is the unavoidable outcome of the rule of politically inexperienced adventurers. These have no right ​to their seat at the National Council Board, not even the right of prescription; they are,—to put it mildly,—intruders, and they know full well that they will have to slink away without any notice to quit at some near date. Since they must make the best of their short tenure of office, they live on courting their careless supporters, namely, the ignorant and heedless majority of the human family, the grossly cheated victims of the universal franchise, who are, knowing not the meaning of self-restraint, ever ready to give up their citizenship and sell their vote in exchange for liberitismand material gratifications. Yes; from the universal franchise, to-day, shamefully hawked about electoral booths, spring the evils of contemporary France. Thanks to the sentimental policy in the past of narrow-minded and obstinate Conservatives, together with the to-day unchecked audacity of the Demagogy, the French Monarchy has in turn been, since February 22, 1848, the prey to designing adventurers or unscrupulous upstarts, a fair average of them belonging to the groups of the Free-thought International Community. French Free-thinkers! Beings whose efforts are not only to expel all ideas of religion and patriotism from their own schools, but will venture further afield and insult the feelings of people of a different opinion. Beings towards whose unmanly teaching, unreasonable writings, and clamorous meetings Democratic Cabinets are known ever to maintain a too "prudent" reserve, and in fact make common cause with them sometimes. Such is the case indeed with MM. Léon Gambetta (whom the enjoyment of power for some months seems to have left more moderate, and apparently less "anti-clerical"), Jules Ferry, and Paul Bert, with their pack of rabid or disappointed political "fruits secs" like Rochefort and Victor Hugo. Englishmen of thought and taste, earnest reformers and philanthropists, agree that the least said of such political allies the better. Since every man's ambition is to be something when short of being somebody, the fanatical—when not abusive—Rochefort elected to be the mouthpiece of street mobs and the leader of the French "racaille," of social anarchists, bandits, incendiaries, and assassins. His head-quarters are in Paris, but are not the foreign branches,—those in England too,—branches of the same scampish school, whether they be French, German, or ​Russian? As to Victor Hugo, in politics as much as in literature he has forfeited the confidence of his countrymen, barring those who do not respect God. Victor Hugo is as much of a political turn-coat as of a literary one. He prostituted his loyalty and gratitude to his King and Royal benefactors in order to obtain a temporary prominence under the Republic, changeable France apparently forgetting the "Grand Old Man's" Conservative Manifesto of former days: "L'histoire des hommes ne présente de poésie que jugée du haut des idées monarchiques et des croyances religieuses."
On July 13th last, at the Hôtel de Ville, the childish old man was replying in the following words to the toast of the Chairman of the Paris Municipal Corporation: "July 14th, is Paris striking Royalty! It is the setting at liberty of men. Ὁ ψευδωμότης! His was a wasted trouble, he too failed because he is no statesman, no philosopher. Moreover, the Republic, like anybody else (this is a logical conclusion), only takes servants of tried fealty.
​Let us accept France as she stands now, that is, as the tool of wealthy parvenus, respectable stock-jobbers, and a meek bourgeoisie on the one hand, and of romantic Monarchists, unreasonable Radicals, and a considerable majority of ignorant or interested small shopkeepers, licensed victuallers, and peasants on the other side. These are the two most potent antagonists to political exertion in the right direction.
The civic education of a nation is no light task, and a most anxious one it is for her natural leaders, who should be the men of higher position and education in the land. But less so-called prudent reserve, more promptitude and zeal all over France will prove the most important and influential weapon against internal as well as external enemies. One of the commonest reproaches to which French Conservatives are rightly subjected in England, is their apathy to the promotion of the national welfare, grounded upon what is their politique d'effacement, or standing aloof from the electoral field, from political elections and provincial and communal meetings. Such is the language not seldom employed, both in conversation and in print, by the people in England who really wish to be friendly to France, and for whose kind sentiments, plain, honest common sense dictates that Frenchmen should not be ungrateful. Meanwhile, Frenchmen may venture to remind us with all due respect as an absolutely true fact, that Frenchmen of higher position and abilities have difficulties neither few nor slight to overcome before reaching the classes they are expected to lead: the rapprochement between classes of French society since 1789 is undoubtedly improving in tone and feeling to-day; but the higher are still usually misunderstood and unjustly judged by the Lower Middle classes. The semi-real and semi-apparent vanity in the national character goes a long way to explain the indifferent feelings of men for one another. So far so good. But with regard to the rest, the accusation of non-activity, so strongly levelled against contemporary Monarchists in France, is true, nevertheless, and honest. It is sufficient to read and see that the present political conduct of Monarchists is hostile to political freedom, preventing all growth, and nearly destroying all vitality in Conservative politics. The Historian's duty is, not to exhort only, but to act in the same spirit which guided his elders, ​and to stand upon the great, pure and unassailable lessons ot History. If men stand by them manfully and work for them vigorously, the time may come, nay, it will come, when renewed power and lasting life will further the ends of justice. Men are surely not expected deliberately to doom themselves to death and, under the leadership of Forlorn Hope and Despair, to give it tip, with a resolution worthy of a modern fakir!!! The talismanic word "reaction" is now being sounded throughout France, and nine out of ten educated Englishmen do not know who alone can be the lawful Sovereign of France. Wherefore, we determined, without any pretension to political education or position, to take advantage of the present revival in historical explorations and political expeditions to rebuke the strange phenomenon of ignorant or prejudiced countrymen of ours with testimonies certain and proofs to which no man may add and from which no man may take away, unless falling under the accusations of disreputable sectarianism and unmanly partisanship. From the principles with their effects as laid down in this Essay, it will be easily seen that on this side of the Channel every true and sensible Englishman is in duty bound to stand by Mr. Newdegate, the Parliamentary Representative for North Warwick, and to oppose all shades and fancies of Bradlaughism, simply on the ground that they represent in England the worst and most dangerous principles of French Revolutions and French Republics.
* ↑ Lawyers like MM. Constans and Cazot trample under foot the Article Fifth of their very Republican law of September 3rd, 1791, to rob so many good and useful Clergymen and Sisters of Mercy of both their homes and property. What a moral lesson to neighbouring countries! These well may forbid at home the importation of Republican institutions, from France at all events. Republican "Liberité, Egalité, Fraternité" is a lie. The very idea is ridiculous, and more amusing still is the advertisement of these words stuck all over towns and villages in France.
* ↑ We ventured to say that Victor Hugo is a literary turn-coat. In literature, V. Hugo, until sixty-four years old, was the popular literary man of France. He is a renowned veteran in the republic of letters, the father of the "sweet lyric song" in modern France, undoubtedly a poet of great and original genius. Decidedly the primary consideration of so eminent a genius and leader should have been the respect, at least, of the feeling of France, an essentially religious and Conservative land. Proud and impatient, thirsting for a vast but fleeting popularity, he rushed headlong into the ranks of those he dares to call now his "admirable and generous French people." Regardless of the hopes, faith and love which had endeared him to France in earlier years, and which—as they are to the present Poet Laureate of England—were more than enough to have made his old age beautiful and dignified, the grey-headed old man, tossed upon the black wave of Revolutions, sullied his fame by bringing forth books which only live to swell the torrent of iniquity, and to effect the downfall of many a promising, fair and guileless youth, abroad as well as in France. One understands human frailty; one pities any fallen man; but one wonders at the double baseness of a man who betrays both his political and literary colours, drawing upon himself contempt and rejection from his countrymen. Most Frenchmen, indeed, are good citizens and pious Christian people, and possess national pride and self-respect enough to judge their masters from the higher stand-point of truth and morality as much as of loyalty and honesty. With Englishmen not conversant with French people and French things, we may fairly concede that Frenchmen seem the most restless members of the European family; but Frenchmen, apparently, can endure anything rather than a quiet life, and besides, French news, as generally told to ordinary Englishmen, is the echo of the smallest, most grovelling, and most low-toned portion of the French Press, of the organs of the " gentlemen of the road."