# The Royal Family of France (Henry)/Signs of Times

"Deum timeto: regem honorato: virtutem colito: disciplinis bonis operum dato."
THE ROYAL FAMILY OF FRANCE.
II.
SIGNS OF TIMES.
The French at last appear to find out that contentment with one's lot is an element of happiness, and that in their changes of government since February, 1848, they have changed nothing beyond the names of their masters. Frenchmen—since King Louis Philippe's abdication—exchanged the paternal rule of their Kings with the all-beneficial influence of the Royal Family of France for the yoke of fawning parasites; for an infernal mismanagement of the State affairs under self-seeking adventurers, under inexperienced politicians and heathenish doctrinaires, under greedy sets of priggish stock-jobbers and comically ignorant red-tapists; in short, under squad after squad, or rather under batch after batch, of aboriginals of Colney Hatch, more jealous and more disunited the one than the other. To-day's history declares about our neighbours across the Channel scarcely anything better than that. It seems likely that the course of events in France will shortly lead strangers, who may desire to understand the remarkably powerful (for better or for worse) influence of that country in Europe, to study her History anew, and to test the true and just claims of the lawful Heir to the French Crown. Bossuet, when tutor to the Dauphin of France, rightly taught his Royal pupil to look upon History as the most important of all secular studies for a King. The Eagle of Meaux might have added that History is all-important for every man who will put away vulgar, common ideas, and seek after royal thoughts. This is an occasion for us to ​appeal to home readers of good faith in favour of an event which contemporary echoes all now acknowledge as a probable one at least: we mean, the approaching re-establishment of Monarchy in France. Considering what France was under her Kings, what she now is, and how many troubles she has had to endure at the hands of intriguers, the conclusion in its substance, in its nudity, in its complete entirety, accepted by all men able to read French History, is surely that France always was, is at heart, and should remain what Great Britain is, and rightly wishes to remain, i.e., a Constitutional Monarchy. Unless deliberately ignoring the History of France before 1792, surely no one will contend that a King on the Throne of France will prove a step in advance from complexity to simplicity in settling the internal and foreign difficulties of Europe, unable as we are, to do without France. As to political farceurs, suspicious minds and interested partisans of the Imperial or Republican confraternities, we do not expect to see them accept our views. Calamities never teach wisdom to fools. But cordially we acknowledge that those birds of passage, worshippers of the rising sun, who follow wherever the crowd leads, render it possible that the wise should avail themselves of the emergency. And this we mean and will endeavour to do to the best of our power.
Our political faith as based on French History is not disguised: and, following the example of H.R.H. the Comte de Paris, and other Princes of the Orleans family, we acknowledge that France should pledge her allegiance and life to her sole lawful or legitimate Sovereign, the Duke de Bordeaux and Comte de Chambord, Henri V., absent, but never forgotten. French Monarchists will have proved by their constancy that they are not mere worshippers of success, but faithful subjects of an exiled King. The rights of the royal exile of Frohsdorff are beyond cavil; and the object of all the veneration and demonstrations in his favour is himself worthy ot even more than that which is given him. The Comte de Chambord, blameless as a man as well as a Prince, is every inch of him the "Roy." Amidst the terrible events which have delivered up France to political quacks, he stands out as the champion of unalloyed patriotism enlightened by religion. He may never reign, for duplicity ​and dissimulation find no echo in his heart; and he alone can once for all remove the difficulties which delay the fusion of all Monarchist Frenchmen into one body. But his adherents will remain true to him to the last, or until such time as he bids them to follow their chief's Heir- Apparent, H.R.H. the Comte de Paris. It is worthy of note that His Majesty the Emperor of Austria, on his way to Trieste, made a short stay at Frohsdorff. This is the first time that any living King or Emperor has openly visited H.R.H. the Comte de Chambord. But the present state of things in France could not fail to draw the Emperor of Austria and Hungary to the side of the chief living representative of French Monarchy. Indocti discunt, ament meminisse periti! Of one fact we remind intelligent men, open to a sense of truth and justice towards their next-door neighbour as much as towards themselves: when self-styled politicians, only busy in now turning out of their situation well-informed and valuable advisers, have done masquerading as patriots, the hypocritically disguised King Petaud is sure, sooner or later, to be stripped off, and the certain sequel is humiliating exposure and fall. We will wait and also ​remind the reader that French Monarchists always were, and still are, a set of "braves gens" and "gens braves," and no evil-hearted crowd or Soho scamps; in short, they are Christian Socialists, and Christian Nationalists.
Our seemingly hopeless task is much lighter since we do not write for the satisfying the coarse inquisitiveness of the "people;" nor are we writing for that "varia et mutabilis, rudis indigestaque moles," the "anima vilis" of modern polling-booths. Our efforts only court the attention of friends whose knowledge of the History, the manners and speech of our neighbours on the other side of the "silver streak " is not derived from their light literature and from what may be termed the "boulevard" journalism and feuilletonism.
By our experience of arduous routes—for the teaching as the learning life is uphill indeed—we know that no doubt trials and the "furrows of care" must occur along the road on the way; and men of standing and position far higher than ours could tell us, that they are not better off in that respect than their lower brethren in society. Meanwhile, through these trials of the feal ones, we feel that men are being enlightened, doctrines proved, the cycle of experience completed, errors removed and truth more dominant. After being almost shipwrecked on the rock of improbability, men must meet in the safe haven of the possible at last. In reference to the subject of this work, we are told: "Monarchy is impossible and hopeless in France!" "All will be social and political changes, no guarantees of good government, stagnant politics!" "The Monarchical party is not a formidable set of men pitted against the Liberal propensities of thousands of Frenchmen!" "Their remaining true to tradition is as little likely to restore a King to the throne of France, as the Stuarts were to oust the Hanoverians!" "Men indifferent alike to the principles they profess to believe and the interests which they certainly value!" "Men utterly unable to read the meaning of contemporary events!" "Men devoid of political wisdom, industry, and determination!" "A set of men who shipwrecked their best chances on the rocks of Frohsdorff!" In short, the talismanic "Réaction! Readionnaires!"
Such is the stock of loose or inaccurate, abusive or fanatical ​statements made by men deliberately or indeliberately forgetful that French Réactionnaires have done the best service to their country as soldiers, sailors, diplomatists, or statesmen, as ever service was done. This cavilling style of speech shows no knowledge of the History of the country, no humour, no high education. And the generous feelings of Englishmen, their good sense and affectionate reverence for Royalty, demand that, before giving his verdict against any man and any body of men, a judge should be known to all of us as a man of a pure patriotism and above all reproach in his own life, a pattern of every manly virtue, able to enforce the virtues, or, at the very least, the semblance of the virtues, a large portion of which he expects elevated men as the humble ones to possess. The true-blue French Tory and steadfast reactionary, the "antediluvian," the. sombre and austere (if you like) French Monarchist is a true patriot and perfectly honest man, and not born some centuries too late to be fitted for the age he is called upon to live in. Since cur students are to be taught now in their University lectures (this we are glad to hear) the History of France, they must learn that Kings and Queens, and not Imperialism or Republicanism made France, just like Kings and Queens, and not the Commonwealth, made England. And the Royal Family of France, the lawful King with his lawful Heirs and Family are living in spite of the comic milk-and-water Politics as preached now-a-days at Albert Gate respecting the History of France. Nay, who will deny that Imperialism and Republicanism both betrayed France and sank her deep into ruinous debts and pools of blood. French Kings and French Royal Princes of the past may as well be called "useless" for not having long ago found out railways, steam, electric telegraphs; and our Beloved Queen Victoria styled "passée" because of Her Majesty not having thought of electric light forty years ago! Are France or England for that less the good result of Monarchy? To-day France is the France of French Monarchy, the only difference being that under the First Napoleon the Allies entered Paris on the 6th of July, 1815, and that the fallen Emperor saddled France with the Treaty of Paris (1815); the Third Napoleon lost Alsace less Belfort; and that the Third Republic lost a large slice of Lorraine through not coming to terms with ​Prussia before the capitulation of Metz, French History begins not either from 1870 or 1792; and if men, strangers to History, cannot educate, let them be educated! Only look around to-day. Let them recollect and think over the remark made by President Grévy (after his acceptance of the Order of the Golden Fleece), in reply to a friend who reminded him of the famous Grévy Amendment, the object of which was to eliminate the President of the Republic "as useless to the direction of affairs, and dangerous in a country of Monarchical traditions." President Grevy said: "I am giving the proof of the necessity of my Amendment, and demonstrating that after me no President is possible." Veniam petimus damusgue vicissim.
By a fundamental law of nature, it is thus far at all events that all Revolutions in the world usefully serve to demolish the clay walls of refuge within which one-eyed politicians and sophists confide their safety. The traditions of prejudice and social exclusiveness do, no doubt, go far to account for the indifference, when not ignorance, about the rights of others as contained in History. This we grant readily. Happily freedom of times and force of character enable contemporary searchers to break through barriers and to do away with the defects of a limited early education and its trammels. In these days, when men are wont so easily to slip out of the straight line in exchange for notoriety or money, truth and fairness perhaps may prove, we fear, unfriendly visitors to many. But the guiding principle, "Be just and fear not," infallibly wins hearers at the least. And to these we offer this study.
Averse personally to party spirit, we gladly accept all good whencesoever it come. And if we appear as a staunch defender of a Christian economy, of Church and State, it is because our studies and experience have taught us that outside the religion of Christ, outside Christian society and Christian politics, there can be found neither lasting peace, greatness, freedom, nor true civilization; only oppressive, venal and weak men.
Before we address ourselves to the question which is before us, it is as well to dispose of one or two points connected with the current History of France. Radicals and Republicans will have some difficulty in persuading intelligent observers of facts that ​all non-Democratic Frenchmen are unpatriotic in keeping out of their range altogether, instead of strengthening the hands of the present Republican Government by ungrudgingly accepting what some dare term an established Republic. In short, we are told that all non-Republican Frenchmen are out of the political arena altogether. It may be the case that a large number of so-called Republicans to-day follow in the track of the Republic; these are ignorant or apathetic men who to-morrow will cry down the sitting gods of October, 1882. These patriots are neither "fish, flesh, fowl, nor good red herring;" but for these men to be anything and everything, to be nothing, in fact, has not hitherto been regarded as a mark of superiority in France as well as in England. Intelligent politicians and wise patriots in France know besides, and teach their sons to remember, that the very first condition of politics is that a man must accept the onward movement which it implies, but never at the expense of their conscience. These men should be said waiting; but they have not become isolated from politics, and they indeed are not outsiders. Their notions about truth and Ues, about justice and theft, practically keep them from moving; the fact is, they will not stir because they will not move in a wrong direction,' in a direction offensive to the most rudimentary, to the wise and superior dictates of their conscience. But the old French spirit and the old French patriotism is all alive along the Monarchical lines, and will at no distant date rule France once more.
For our purpose we have thought it worth while to add a few notes for which we are indebted to eminent, influential Frenchmen just now "sur la brèche" in Paris, battling hard for the better welfare of Christian and Monarchical France: MM. François Beslay, A. de Céséna, Edouard Hervé, de Kérohant, Léon Lavedan, etc. These Publicists, seeing the miserable state of things in France, feel the possibility of a higher and happier state and they strive for its attainment. It is true that disappointment has followed^ and again may follow their disappointment,—
"Ye build! ye build! but ye enter not in,  Like the tribes whom the desert devoured in their sin;  From the land of promise ye fade and die,  Ere its verdure gleams forth on your wearied eye."
"Love thyself last; cherish those hearts that love thee; Corruption wins not more than honesty." "He is a free man whom the truth makes free, And all are slaves beside."
And their lively and prudent direction — to-day the "faint tinges of a seemingly expiring sunset" — to-morrow will be "all the glory of the daybreak":—
"Never yet Share of Truth was vainly set In the world's wide fallow; After hands shall sow the seed, After hands, from hill and mead, Reap the harvest yellow."
We give these Publicists' writings our ungrudged support, because, as far as they go, their writings are the result of an uncommon ability and a wide experience; because they are a simple and honest reproduction of truth and right, of fairness about the changes and trials of France; and because they truly tend thereby to promoting a solid, durable good in their country. Let us now consider their valuable suggestions.
I. How Stands Europe To-day?
Our first point is: What is the state of things in Europe just now?
It has been said that Sparta blinded Greece in one eye on the day she overthrew the power of Athens. As truly might it be said that Germany darkened an orb of Europe when she was allowed to dismember and to humble France. Since the Treaty of Vienna (October 30, 1864), since the battle of Sadowa (July 3, 1866); since that year of terror which beheld the Prussian Army under the walls of Paris, notwithstanding the peace of Paris and the Congress of Berlin, nations wrestle in darkness; shifting ​and moly politics hinder throughout the world all progress of the old good traditions of private and international trust and justice. Diplomacy sees all international rights of European balance, acknowledged and revered by our forefathers, grow indistinct and overcast. As a matter of fact, cheating has become right. In the mind of many it may well be asked whether we are retrograding towards the barbaric ages.
We are in November 1882; another stirring war has just closed upon the banks of the Nile; British warships and British soldiers have shown to the world what they can do. Great Britain may rest proud of her sons; and for once Europe should be thankful, in spite of the present drifts of opinion and taste on the Continent. We gladly see Continental Powers acknowledge that he who shares the danger and the toil ought to share the prize and the profit. But the dominant fact that remains unchanged still is about the state of Europe in general in 1882.
The present confused situation of European countries, linked together with a network of rivalries and conspiracies, bears some analogy to the situation of Europe in 1807. It is the old, old, and ever new story of the Ass, the Fox, and the Lion. In 1807 England had sunk into the insignificant and precarious position France now occupies. Napoleon I., victorious in Italy and the German States, aspired to reviving for his own aggrandisement the Western Empire, leaving to Russia the Eastern Empire. The civilized world was threatened with the sway of two despots, each ruling over a population of a hundred millions with an army of fifteen hundred thousand soldiers.
Napoleon I. and the Emperor Alexander I. finally disagreed. The treaty of alliance concluded at Tilsit in July 1807 was torn to bits when the question was raised as to which of the two Sovereigns was to have the Bosphorus; five years later. Napoleon's army lay buried in the snows of Russia. "Harm hatch, harm catch."
Germany, attracting within its orbit Austria and Italy (the latter a recently patented State to be used as the tampon between Germany and Austria on the one side, France and England on the other) aims at reconstructing' the Western Empire. England seeks to strengthen and secure her Empire in the East. Thus we ​see a collision of the same ambitions and fears which strove together in 1807, the only difference being that the meshes of the secret plotting between the rulers of the world are woven at London and Berlin, instead of at Paris and Constantinople; and that they stretch out to Cairo and the Suez Canal instead of to Constantinople and the Bosphorus. Whatever the means, the aim is ever the same: the division of the empire of the world. Alexander I. would not allow Napoleon to blockade Europe by land, and to lead his army to India. Will Prince von Bismarck let England blockade it by sea, and lay hands on the Suez Canal and on the future railroad to Bagdad?
The grim iron Chancellor has been busy for the last fifteen years in building up the Empire of the West; and his work is yet unfinished. Sir Garnet Wolseley, master of Cairo, has practically handed over the Empire of the East to his Queen, Sovereign of three kingdoms and Empress of India. It is all very well for M. de Bismarck to declare that Egypt is not worth the life of a single Pomeranian private soldier; "The grapes are sour, and not ripe as I thought," says he. But the supremacy of Germany is imperilled by the Egyptian question, and German newspapers openly threaten England with the fate some day of the "sick man." In the settlement of any transaction, we must recollect that the covetous are poor givers, and that lukewarm friends and shuffling acquaintances are more unsafe than an open enemy. England is playing the conquering game, and it must be admitted that she plays it with astounding and justified boldness. She has sent thirty-five thousand soldiers to Egypt, including the Household Guards, that is to say, the bulk of her available forces. Had she suffered a defeat, her situation would have been most critical. Successful, she will continue to prosecute her plans; and doubtless she will take care to make friends in prosperity in order to have their help in adversity. Yet we cannot suppose that M. de Bismarck is inclined to allow England to grasp the Empire of the East. He is simply holding back for a time whilst sending Turkey to the front. He will step forward as soon as destiny strikes the hour. M. de Bismarck always counts the cost before he commits himself When this fatal moment comes, France, mindful that time and place often give the advantage to the weak ​over the strong, could rise up, put forth her claims, and with one bound regain her position, as did Austria in 1813.
"There is a tide in the affairs of men,  Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune."
France, mighty on the ocean, in the Mediterranean, in Europe and Africa, by the twofold strength of her improved army and navy, may become the arbitress, nay, the only mediatrix, between England and Germany. If she rose to the greatness of the occasion, she might reconquer, perhaps without unsheathing her sword, her prestige, her influence, and even her lost provinces. To pave the way for such a future she requires a Minister for Foreign Affairs with the genius of a Talleyrand or a Metternich, if not of a Richelieu or a Cavour. Since Republicans have held the reins of government, the Ministers for Foreign Affairs have been many and various. It is important that such experiments should not be prolonged indefinitely, because in quarrelling about the shadow we often lose the substance. So much for the general state of affairs in Europe up to the present month of November.
II. Republican Diplomacy.
A few days ago we read in the Voltaire (a Paris Republican newspaper) some comical lines about Republican Diplomats of the day. We give them in the original text:—
"Echine basse et chapeau bas, le dos en arc de cercle, le ventre humblement rentré, les épaules serrées sons l'habit a la française, les bras collés au corps, les mollets essayant de se confondre avec les tibias, tout être ratatiné, recroquevillé, ramassé sur lui-même, voyez ce fantôme qui passe, long, sec et plat, rasant les murs, effleurant les paves … Ce fantôme, c'est celui de la diplomatic française sous la glorieuse présidence de M. Jules Grévy.'"
The language is terse and the description accurate enough, though far from flattering. Besides the writer of this graphic and lively onslaught emphasises his ideas as follows: "Appealed to from one end of the earth to the other, the French flag remains unfurled. Our fleet is only surpassed by England's, yet it remains ​a mere plaything, or rather a useless toy! From Gibraltar to Port Said, from Aden to Madagascar, the shores make sport of it with jeer and laughter. When speaking of French intervention of the 'Invincibles' and 'Monitors' of France, it might well be said of them as of the cuirassiers of Jean de Nivelle: 'When they are called, they turn and fly.'"
The Third Republic in its foreign policy has certainly assumed an attitude quite uncongenial to the French genius and temperament. Yet we cannot quite perceive what measures the Voltaire advocates to remedy this state of affairs. "There exists," it says, "an ancient, a clear tradition to guide the diplomacy of a great nation." France then should return to this tradition at once. And to make up for the shortness of information from our Republican fellow-scribe, we will tell him that this well-defined tradition of French diplomacy has had representatives illustrious enough in the persons of Armand Duplessis Cardinal de Richelieu, and Mazarin, in Hugues de Lyonne, de Talleyrand-Périgord, the Duke de Richelieu, in Prince de Polignac, Drouyn de Lhuys, Thiers, the Duke de Broglie. Each of these Ministers for Foreign Affairs whilst holding office confronted Europe with proud and patriotic attitude. But to return to their traditions would be to return to the traditions of Monarchy; and we do not imagine that the Voltaire is inclined to renounce its gods, to trample under foot its Republican convictions, and to sigh for the restoration of the Monarchy to France?
By having established a Republican form of government, France has doubtless laid herself open to the suspicions of the other Powers of Europe, which have all adhered to the Monarchical system. The bad example she has given, and keeps giving, may be overlooked on condition that she conducts herself properly and quarrels with no one outdoors. No European Government is anxious to enter into alliance with her. As long as she makes no sign she will be unmolested in her isolation and impotence. Were she to show the slightest inclination towards combativeness, a coalition would be formed against her immediately. M. de Freycinet would not venture on such risks, and we cannot blame him. His mistake, as regards the Egyptian Question, was not that he left his sword sheathed, but that he drew it half out only ​to find himself compelled to let it sink into the scabbard forthwith. If this Minister, with the air of a Richelieu, a Polignac, a Drouyn de Lhuys, had not laid pretensions to the luxury of a naval expedition and an ultimatum, France would not have undergone the humiliation of seeing her fleet stationed before Alexandria to witness the massacre of Frenchmen and then retiring at the sound of the cannon. A rather novel experience for the descendants of the sailors at Aboukir Bay and Navarino!
We do not say that it is absolutely impossible that France should form alliances or fill a distinguished place as long as she remains Republican. We only wish to point out that to accomplish this she must clear away many obstacles, overcome many repugnances, triumph over many difficulties. The work of rehabilitation demands time, labour, and skill of the highest order. Where is the Republican statesman capable of playing such a great part? Could this rara avis be found on the Left, he would not be allowed the time necessary for maturing his ideas. In Foreign policy five, six, ten years even, of uninterrupted labour are needed before a result is achieved. Under the present system the Minister for Foreign Affairs can hardly count on more than six months of office. To remain a year on the Quay of Orsay would be an unexpected favour from the fickle goddess. It is not difficult to understand that under such a system there could be no sequence or connection in the foreign policy of France.
M. Gambetta has not disguised to himself that an almost insurmountable antipathy reigns between Republican France and Monarchical Europe. This is the secret of the obstinacy with which he clings to an alliance with England; the peculiar characteristics of the English Constitution, more akin to Republican principles than to Imperial notions of centralization and authority, were, in M. Gambetta's idea, well calculated to facilitate a reconciliation between these two great Western nations.
But the Anglo-French alliance projected by him, and which was to have given rise to a political intervention in Egypt, would have exposed France to a danger the consequences of which it was impossible to foresee. The difficulty England experienced in raising an army of from thirty to forty thousand men proves that she could have tendered but slight aid to France if a Continental ​coalition had been formed against France and her eastern frontier attacked.
As long as France has not an alliance in Europe with a Power holding at its disposal a million of men, such as Russia or Austria, France will be forced to remain insignificant, and her diplomacy must not dream of assuming its legacy of high traditions which the Voltaire mourns over. But we cannot see that the Republic of the gentlemen of the pavement can ever aspire to the alliance of Russia or Austria.
Republican France of 1792 held up her head before the whole of Europe. That is true. The Voltaire seems to think that Republican France of 1882 might assume the same proud attitude. " None of the great Powers," says our French contemporary, " are prepared to make war. We alone are in a position to assume a bellicose policy: amongst the nations of Europe France is the one least inclined for adventure, and yet she is the one who could go forth to meet it most readily and with fewest drawbacks. Tight-waisted Germany sounds hollow beneath her martial tunic; the measured tread of Russia reveals the void created by the miner's craft; well set up and well ballasted, the little French soldier stands ready to meet the first shock."
We do not wish to impugn the virtues of the "little French soldier." But if the writer in the Voltaire has reason for relying on the military strength of France, he has no right to depreciate that of other European nations. Such optimism is apt to mislead its votaries; and zeal should not outrun discretion. Germany's poverty is but relative; and want of funds would not prevent her making war where her interests were concerned. Russia might seek in foreign complications a compensation for her home troubles; and precisely on account of her own land being undermined would she be tempted to plant her foot on safer territory belonging to her neighbours.
III. The Wrong State of Things Explained.—The Remedy.
"The empire of the earth belongs to the mind," said the Pope's Legate sent to France by Innocent III. to impose the decision of the Holy See on King Philip Augustus in the matter of his divorce ​from the Danish Princess Ingelburga. M. Enfantin, the Pope of the Saint Simoniens, appropriated this maxim in 1830, and built up his whole system of government on it.
To-day, M. Vacherot handles the same thesis in the Republican daily Newspaper, the Dix-Neuvième Siecle. In his turn he studies the vices of the present situation, the dangers of which he acknowledges; and, so as not to attribute these vices to Republican institutions, which form his ideal, he imputes them to individuals in an article headed The Policy of the last-born (nouvelles couches), which personages he declares "unfit for government through lack of education and proper training."
Yes; both education and training are wanting to these new heirs whose advent M. Léon Gambetta predicted and prepared the way for, and who to-day hold every path to power, from the functions of village mayors to those of Senators and Deputies. But are not institutions and individuals both alike answerable for this? The Constitution of a country has inevitably and irresistibly a powerful influence over the composition of its personal and legislative government, and consequently over the direction of public business.
Under the old system, at the dawn of Royalty, when the feudal Nobility were honest but mostly ignorant, clerics, priests, and bishops especially, ruled, not by might or right,—neither of which they owned,—but by their influence; and that influence they owed to their mental superiority, to the culture of their minds, in a word, to their education. Their power was a legitimate one; and though it had drawbacks, it remained for ages a medium of civilization.
Under the Houses of Valois and Bourbon, the Nobility of the sword, who were the Nobility by birth, the true, and one might say, the only secular and traditional Nobility, wielded a sort of power over the government. But their influence was far from being exclusive. If the great Conde held high military command, it was not only because he was of royal blood, it was also and principally because he possessed in a high degree a genius for war.
The ancestors of Abraham de Fabert, Catinat, Vauban, of Richelieu, Mazarin, de Lyonne, Colbert, and Louvois, who stood so high in the councils of Royalty or in the ranks of the Army, ​did not, as far as we know, descend from the crusaders. But they had received what M. Vacherot very rightly terms education, as had also those ancient and illustrious families of the Noailles, the Choiseuls and the Polignacs, who, though of aristocratic lineage, remained in an obscure position.
The Constituents of 1789 were also men of education; and they formed the grandest debating Assembly, the grandest Parliamentary Assembly, perhaps, which the world has ever seen. It has left deep and ineffaceable traces on the soil of France; and if the work it brought into existence has some defects of detail which experience and time have already rectified or can hereafter remedy, it will ever stand forth as the inauguration of the political and social transformation of the whole of Europe.
How had these Constituents been elected? Was it by universal suffrage as practised in these days? No. The body of voters at that time could offer pledges of wisdom and sense, in a word, the pledge of education, and this it can do no longer. In admitting that the evil does He in the institutions,—a matter we do not here wish to examine into or discuss,—in admitting that it belongs entirely to individuals, how shall we remedy it, how can we impart to them the education they require? Is not a large proportion of the electoral body itself deprived of education?
When all is said, universal suffrage does not always furnish an enlightened, laborious, patriotic, and disinterested Parliament, holding right opinions as to the general conduct of public business, and more especially as to the Foreign policy best adapted to the times and interests of the country. We have the proof of this to hand.
It is evident that there is a category of electors who in ordinary circumstances are incapable of making an enlightened choice, incapable of distinguishing clearly between men of worth and men totally unfit and unprepared for their representative post. Then there are certain local influences which are not always characterized by prudence, and whose capacity is far below the level of their ambition. Lastly, when M. Vacherot will not admit that the institutions are not answerable for the inferiority of a Republican Parliament, how can he explain that those under the Monarchy were so much superior to these latter?
IV. Truth Mutilated
The "General" of Socialism in France, M. Louis Blanc, to excuse his absence from the banquet on Sept. 21st, at the Lake Saint Fargeau (organized by a federation of the Radical and anti-Opportunist Republicans of and around Paris), wrote a letter of fraternal congratulations on the abolition of Kings and Queens.
We wish first to say a few words about this banquet. It was held to celebrate the anniversary of the proclamation of the First Republic in France, on Sept. 21st, 1792. This was the first act of the National Convention, declaring the abolition of Royalty. This was its prelude to the judicial assassination of King Louis XVI., who was as yet only a prisoner in the tower of the Temple; soon he was to become a martyr, and to mount the scaffold in the open space named after the Revolution. Men should be reminded that Royalty had remained unassailed throughout the Ages of Faith. Attempts against Kings have been repeatedly made since the Renaissance only; regicide inspired the people with less horror from the day when Brutus and Scevola were crowned with the martyr's heroic wreath. Charles I., Mary Stuart, Henri III., Henri IV., Louis XVI., Marie-Antionette, and Madame Elizabeth, were the first holocausts to that heathenish reaction. And in these days of ours have not attempts to murder Royal Princes and heads of States become of so frequent an occurrence that that most awful crime may very soon rank among common offences in the eyes of the populace?
It is singular, it is even instructive, that the anniversary of the 21st of September should now be only celebrated by the anti-Opportunists when the Third Republic is in part the work of M. Gambetta, the leader of Opportunism. The six hundred guests of both sexes at Saint Fargeau (where the private festivities concluded with dancing, as did the official festivities on July 14th last), are therefore much more advanced than M. Gambetta, who remains far behind them.
​Thus M. Gambetta, whose policy is frankly, bluntly, Jacobinical, anti-religious, anti-Conservative, Radical, Montagnard, is outstripped by M. Louis Blanc, who no longer has adherents in the Palais Bourbon, but who had fanatical followers in the mass of the populace; and who, when he vanished from the public stage, left behind him, first M. Clémenceau, next M. Guesde as the official heirs of his revolutionary aspirations.
M. Louis Blanc considers the date of Sept. 21st, 1792, as the most memorable of all those belonging to the Revolution, because on that date., by the abolition of Royalty and the proclamation of the Republic, it was saved from the Coalition of the Foreign Princes whose accomplice the King of France was. This is a lie, and a calumny! History has by this time approved the severe and solemn warnings of two most noble Frenchmen, MM. de Malesherbes and de Sèze, the King's counsel.
The complicity of Louis XVL with the Foreign Princes has never been proved; the contrary was proved at his trial. And if his judges had been judges only, in spite of their demagogue passions and their political calculations, they would not have dared condemn him. But the brutal Barrière with his tail of rabid Montagnards had determined beforehand to be his executioners; and they delivered his head to Samson's knife that they might cut off all means of retreat and compel themselves to march ever forward on the blood-stained path they had chosen.
As a matter of fact, the unfortunate King Louis XVI. was the innocent victim slain for the guilt of his ancestors. For this same guilt Royalty became the plaything, an object of contempt and distrust, the tool of the vile populace in France; for the guilt of their forefathers the Princes and Princesses of the Royal House of France have had to fly for their lives and to thank the foreigner for a shelter, nay, some for a tomb! It is God's will. God curses in this present world human institutions as well as human creatures when by Him they are found undutiful: the next world in truth is one of punishment or rewards for individuals. A bad King courts a bad Aristocracy, and the bad examples of the nobles quickly eat up through every class of society.
In speaking with such veneration of Sept. 21st, 1792, M. Louis Blanc is silent about the 21st of January, May 3Tst, and October ​16th, 1793. Does he consider that these dates, which he doubtlessly has purposely omitted, should be also reckoned amongst the great dates of the Revolution? It was Vergniaud who presided at that terrible night sitting where the judges, without warrant to summon him before them, sentenced Louis XVI. to death.
A description of this gloomy sitting, taken from contemporary accounts, should be read at the Bibliothèque Nationale (Paris) in a book called Art de Verifier les Dates. The ballot remained open for four-and-twenty hours. The voters, filled instinctively with a sort of shame and terror at the thought of the monstrous deed they were about to do, glided one by one and at long intervals through the darkness into the hall of suffrage and dropped their solitary vote into the urn.
When Vergniaud, in his turn, mounted the scaffold, Oct. 31st, 1793, he must have remembered with deep remorse the court where he had sat as President and proclaimed the result of the ballot: "Death without delay." He then certainly did not exclaim that Sept. 21st, 1792 had saved the Revolution; he must have told himself that the proclamation of the Republic had ruined liberty. It had, in fact, been abolished with Royalty, it had been beheaded with Louis XVI.
Liberty remained long suspended. Royalty, re-established on April 6th, 18 14, restored it to France. The Charter of Louis XVIII. contained the germ of the right government of the country by itself. This germ was developed by the Charter of August 7th, 1830. In the course of time, and under favourable circumstances, it might have received further developments without any danger to order. The catastrophe of February, 1848, put a stop to the movement.
To-day order is threatened, liberty is outraged, and soon perhaps the Opportunists, with their leader M. Gambetta, who did not attend the banquet at Lake Saint Fargeau, from being persecutors may become the persecuted, as befell the Girondists. They will be persecuted by the modern Terrorists, who will not send them to the guillotine, but who might possibly send them to La Roquette as hostages. There is no need to say what the Commune, which M. Guesde blames for not having broken into the ​Bank of France and burned the books of the Public Debt, does with hostages.
The fate of Revolutionists, whose race has been perpetuated since 1792 to the present day, and gives no promise of extinction, has little interest for us. But before proscribing each other as in the days of the Convention, they may again band together in order to plunge France into anarchy and servitude. M. Duclerc himself, if we may believe the provincial echoes, foresees this danger. We are happy to see that Conservative and Liberal Monarchists will not allow themselves to be thus oppressed.
V. War.
There is no need for alarm on account of this war-cry! No intention exists of invading the editor's office sword in hand and pistol in belt. There is still less idea of rushing into the street with loaded gun preceded and followed by cannons, as on March 18th, 1871, when the Communist federals thronged suddenly from the heights of Montmartre down into the Place Vendôme.
The King's followers have too much respect for the law, even when it is inimical to their political and religious opinions,—and even when (as at present) it imposes a godless education which provokes civil war amongst the citizens,—to advocate revolt, to stir up its minions to storm the Elysée palace. They leave violent measures to Republicans.
The Republic in France has always been established by violence. In 1792, it was the outcome of the 6th of October, 1789, and the 10th of August, 1792; it was the fitting consecration of the massacres of the 2nd of September, in Paris, Versailles, Orleans, Rheims, Meaux, Lyons: over 1430 being slaughtered in Paris alone. In 1848, a pistol-shot fired in front of M. Guizot's house, on February the 23rd, and followed by the terrible days of June, announced the advent of the Second Republic, sealed with the blood of over 1500 killed, seven of whom were Generals in the army—the Second Republic, whose President was Louis Napoleon Bonaparte, who, elected thanks to the prestige of his uncle's name, had taken the following oath. "En présence de Dieu et devant le peuple Français, je jure de ​rester fidèle d, la Republique et de défendre la Constitution." Events from November 21st and December 2nd, 1852, up to July 19th, 1870, have dearly proved to France the third Napoleon's perjuries and villanous hypocrisy. "Harm hatch, harm catch! " The immediate cause of the Third Republic, was indeed a national disaster for which it was not responsible. But under the pretence of assisting its country in the hour of danger, it finished and completed her defeat and ruin.
Ninety years have just passed since Republicanism first made its fatal apparition in the kingdom of Philip-Augustus, St. Louis, Francis I., Henry IV., and Louis XIV. Its work of ruin, blood and hatred, is too well known. It murdered judicially a King who was a political martyr, whatever the Rappel may say when it praises Lakanal, not because the latter was a learned man, but because he was a regicide.
We admit that the First Republic had one title to glory, which up to the present time the Third Republic cannot claim. It possessed great Generals, such as Marceau, Kléber, Hoche, whose brilliant genius could not be eclipsed even by that of General Bonaparte. It therefore achieved military successes that in the eyes of the historian have outbalanced the political crimes, the blood-stained drama of the scaffold under the Convention, the Saturnalian orgies of the corrupt Directory.
The Third Republic has nothing yet to place to its credit side which can balance the sad memories of the disorders and crimes of the Commune; and it is to be feared that, like the First Republic, its latter days will end in drivelling idiotcy. The French are already in the thickest mire of the Directory, which may lead to the decline of France and to her ruin.
This is what the Republican Voltaire declares will be. And that this sinister prophecy may not be fulfilled, we know of but one preventive, which is the revival of public opinion, the strenuous efforts of the sensible partisans of Monarchy, whose assistance ​their chiefs should invite in a legal warfare. Many signs, precursors of evil days, show that France is drifting into a dangerous position where, placed between an umbrageous and threatening enemy without, and an anarchical demagogy or a Jacobin dictatorship within, she may find no way of escape.
It is no longer a time for illusory optimism. The King's party alone can once more save France from this despairing alternative, by seizing the reins of government; and it cannot accomplish this without shock or commotion unless the majority vote for it. The great electioneering struggles are still in the distance; but how can people better prepare for them than by striving to gain partial and local victories?
The senatorial voters of Finisterre offered a good example of energy and patriotism to the whole Monarchical party the other day, both their candidates being elected. Without delay Conservative and Liberal Monarchists must valiantly and boldly unfurl the standard of Order and Liberty through the Monarchy, and bear it onward and onward to triumphal victory. The defeat of the Montagne will easily cause many to falter in their allegiance to the Republic! The success of the King's followers, on the other hand, will restore courage and decision to the timorous and the vacillating, in proving to them that "Where there's a will there's a way." Let them only fear God and honour their King!
* ↑ Prince Bismarck—who is not the man of an idle, shuffling, sceptical and embittered political turn of mind—is well aware that a general feeling of disgust has arisen throughout Europe, thanks to the bad faith and unpractical government of the French Republic. M. de Bismarck knows that H. R. H. the Comte de Chambord is no adventurer seeking after power, and that His Royal Highness is in no way effaced. Perhaps Germany would not discourage the efforts of French Monarchists. King Humbert of Italy would probably have no scruples in following the example of Austria and Germany. His Italian Majesty leads a trembling existence at the Quirinal or at Monza; and he feels that the Republic of France is probably destined to be the forerunner of that of Italy, just as the unification of Italy was the forerunner of that of Germany. Alexander III. has already sent forth his Russian doves with the olive-branch from his Northern Empire. Indeed, in this present Europe, honey-combed with sedition, and bristling with concealed daggers in the hands of the modern breed of low democrats, once more it proves to those who required further proof, that such a disorderly government as has been the rule in France for the past few years is inconsistent with real social and commercial prosperity in any country in general and in Europe in particular. Confidence, which is the very breath of life to private or public success and happiness, refuses to spring up and flourish in an atmosphere of sedition and conspiracy. The Moonlighter and the Assassin, the Land League and self-styled Nationalism in Ireland, are plainly and visibly to Englishmen the most telling and truest evidence about what we are to expect from present and past democrats.
* ↑ M. Louis Blanc's death has occurred since we penned the last lines of this Essay: he passed away at Cannes on the morning of December 7th, at the age of sixty-nine. This restless man will only be missed by the fierce Parisian democracy who cling to the "red rag,"
* ↑ It reminds one of the remark of Dr. Livingstone, who, when he was asked why the presence of missionaries was so distasteful to Europeans in Africa, replied: "It is because they feel that the pure and holy lives of those good men are a reproach to themselves and to their own mode of life on the continent."