The Sun.
London, England, 1849-01-10 00:00:00

II ..741'un

LONDON, WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 10, 1849.

TALLEYRAND used to say of the author of the
Dictionnaire Philosophique, that to the last moment
of his existence, he was Monsieur VOLTAIRE—not
AROUET, or -VOLTAIRE, or the Philosopher of Ferney,
or the poet of the " Henriade," or the historian of
CHARLES XII., or the satirist of " Candide," but
Monsieur VOLTAIRE. The originator of a Demo-
cratic Revolution, he was to his latest breath an
aristocrat. It is the same with the author of Demo-
cracie en France.* The tincture of aristocracy is
visible in the sedate and haughty composure of his
countenance ; it has impregnated every fibre of his
intellect ; and has imparted a saturnine complexion
to the smallest emanations from his genius.
Even on his title-page he is Monsieur Gni-
zoT. The Prime Minister of what he him-
self designates a Democratic Monarchy (Dem. in
France, p. 2), never loses for an instant his patrician
character. He is not to be familiarly recognized as
the essayist, the statesman, the publicist, the peda-
gogue, the orator, the journalist, the administrator,
or the rhetorician. In his Ministerial power, as in
his political banishment, he is simply, boldly, dis-
tinctly, Monsieur GUIZOT. As such we meet him
now in the rapid and scholastic eloquence of his re-
cently published treatise..
When an aristocrat, as bigotted in his Ministerial
predilections as M. GUIZOT, composes an essay upon
Democracy—and that Democracy the Democracy
.of -This native land, a Democracy too, which led

-- : d-rel
tly to his own ignominious expulsion beyond
the : s--W0 must, Ls a matter of necessity, re-
cei.ve-A is remarks—cum grano salis. Nevertheless,
it iS ' - ossibl e not to acknowledge that the pamphlet
fialls;,ko a surprising extent, the hope expressed by
its .ertiinent writer, that little can be detected in it
paring " the impress of his personal situation." If
he has failed in his capacity as a statesman to "direct
the storm," he has certainly endeavoured to "ride

1,-71(

~~-'::.

* " Democracy in France. By Monsieur Guizot."
Bvo., pp. 86. Murray, London, 1849.

THE SU- N,

above the whirlwind" in his capacity as a pam-
phleteer. For this we give him—not reluctantly
—our fullest commendations. Otherwise the book,
published simultaneously in French and English,
in Paris and London, is a very ingenious, and (rhe-
thorically speaking) a very superb tissue of sophisms.
The argument of the whole brochure tends to
the denouncement of Democracy in general, and of
French Democracy in particular. To delude the
popular imagination to such a conclusion would re-
quire, however, an infinitely greater amount of plau-
sibility than has fallen to the share even of M.
GUIZOT. And hence it is that we find a publicist as
vigilant as himself, and a logician as practised as him-
self, and an author as scrupulously painstaking as him-
self stumbling into the most marvellous blunders
of logic and of authorship when striving to
prove, with the clearness as of a syllogism,
that black is white, that ruggedness is smooth, that
a square is an oval. Thus in one sentence (p. 3)
M. GUIZOT maintains that Democracy in Adminis-
tration is identical with Instability of Government :
in another (ibid.), he confesses that the prin-
ciples of democracy have been incorporated in
various kinds of institutions whether monar-
chical or republican : and yet in another (p. 84)
he admits that in three of the greatest
nations in the world—England, Russia, and the
United States—three different forms of government
" endure and prosper," a constitutional monarchy in
the first, an empire in the second, and a republic in
the third. Now, the deduction to be drawn from
these three declarations is very different indeed from
what M. GUIZOT would persuade both himself and
the multitude. FOR :—ln the Republican Con-
stitution of the United States, and in the
Monarchical Constitution of England, the prin-
ciples of Democracy constitute the most im-
portant of all the various ingredients ; consequently,
if these two powers do, as M. GUIZOT himself con-
fesses, " endure and prosper," the incorporation of
democratic principles with the institutions of a coun-
try cannot, according to his dogmatic opinion, be
subversive of authority, cannot (to return to his first
pragmatic position) lead only to instability and eva-
nescence in Government. The reasoning is obvious.
Putting aside, however, for the present, those parts of
this remarkable pamphlet which to our thinking are
nothing less than grievous perversions of the truth—
we would cordially express our coincidence with most
of the views advanced with so much energy of tone
and with so many graces of language in Chapter VII.
It treats of the "Moral Conditions of Social Peace
in France ;" and testifies in a great measure
the correctness of the panegyric pronounced long
since by the democratic voice of Timm. After laying
down that most incontrovertible of axioms, that "it is
a gross delusion to believe in the sovereign power of
political machinery," the pamphleteer protests
against the " hideous mixture of cynicism and
hypocrisy" which has been latterly perceptible
in the harangues of the red demagogues. He insists
upon the necessity of an entente cordiale between
religion and liberty. He says that " the rich and
great of the earth should earnestly endeavour to
alleviate the distresses of those around them." He
argues that, if rightly instructed, " the poor and
humble would be submissive to the will of GOD and
the laws of society." He enlarges upon the necessity
of preserving a respect for the dogmas and exponents
of Christianity. He inveighs against those who
would, if possible, annihilate the domestic instincts.
In all this he speaks well and nobly—but the appli-
cation of his beautiful ideas of philanthropy are as
eccentric as they are erroneous. He calls for the
acknowledgment of these truths, and for the adoption
of these principles in a tone of despondency expres-
sive less of the sentiments of satisfaction than of the
emotions of despair. He alludes to France as if she
were bound hand and foot, and lying under the heel
of a Terrorist Despotism—as if the Socialists and the
Communists were altogether predominant—as if the
rich were, like Fr-Fo-Foes in] the nursery
tale, grinding the bones of the poor to make
their bread —as if domestic happiness was
banished for ever from the soil of the Republic—.
and yet, as if property were a dream, and religion a
bye-word. Such are some of the most sophistical
passages in this latest effusion from one whose genius,
like the Roman Coliseum, is renowned in ruins.

The working of the Irish Poor-law at present en-
grosses the attention of our brethren at the other
side of St. George's Channel. ahe question is,
indeed, one of paramount importance, on the ulti•
mate arrangement whereof the future welfare and
prosperity of the country must in a great degree
depend. If encouragement is still afforded to the
slothful and apathetic at the expense of the active
and energetic ; if negligent landlords are enabled to
involve those ready and willing to discharge
the duties incidental to the possession of
property in one common ruin with themselves, no
hope can remain for the country. When parties de-
clare their readiness to support the poor belonging to
their own estates, and to provide them with employ-
ment, so that they may be enabled to maintain their
families by their own exertions, and to yield a fair re-
turn for that which they receive, it certainly appears
hard to reject an application so reasonable, and to
condemn them to remain united in an al-
liance so destructive and ruinous. Many sug-
gestions have been made with the intention
of relieving those who are honestly and energetically
discharging their duties. That which appears to
receive the most general support is, that respon-
sibility should be individualised as far as possible, or,
in other words, that the area of taxation should be
narrowed to townland, or still smaller divisions, so as
to make it, whenever practicable, conterminous with
property. This view has been strongly advocated by
the Hon. Member for the county of Limerick (Mr.
MoNsEm,), who has powerfully appealed to the justice
of the English nation for an immediate alteration of
the present system.

At first sight, nothing appears more just or equit-
able than the above proposition, and it also appears
one that could be carried into effect without much
difficulty. On a closer examination, however, and on a
consideration of the probable results, formidable ob-
jections arise which appear perfectly insuperable.
First, it would hold out a direct premium to proprie-
tors to adopt the clearance system, and to drive
from their estates all those who by any possibility
may become chargeable on a future occasion. It
might, as Mr. RIGBY WASON happily remarks, be en-
titled "An Act to encourage Landed Proprietors in
Ireland to evict as quickly as possible the Peasantry
from the Homes they have long occupied." If no
other objection could be adduced, the above would
alone be sufficient to forbid its adoption. There is
already a sufficient tendency on the part of Irish
landlords in that direction, and if further induce-
ments were held out, the heart would sicken at the
painful events that would become of almost daily
recurrence.

There is, however, another point which is almost of
equal weight, and which must be fully considered
before a final decision is arrived at. The avowed
object of the alteration is to transfer from energetic
and improving landlords the burden of supporting
some of the poor belonging to the estates of their
embarrassed and impoverished neighbours, who are
Most probably incapable of making any exertion for
their own protection, and who are wholly unable,
even under present circumstances, to defray the
charges for which they are liable. To whom, then,
is the charge to be transferred ? The
answer can only be—to the British nation.
The properties of those weighed down by incum-
brances would be insufficient for the support of the
paupers by whom it was overrun. Nothing would
remain for the mortgagees—nothing for the nominal
landlord—nothing for the occupiers. The entire
produce of the soil would be absorbed by the demands
of the poor-rate collector, and, as a natural conse-
quence, the lands would be suffered to remain un-
cultivated, and would speedily become barren and
unproductive. What, then, would become of the
destitute poor chargeable thereon ? There would be
none on whom they would have a lawful claim for relief
or assistance. The harrowing and heartrending scenes
of the winter of 1846-7 would be re-enacted, we
should again make large grants from the National
Exchequer, unless we were prepared to behold the
miserable people perishing by myriads from want and
starvation.

Are the English people prepared again to assume
this grave responsibility ? To take upon them-
selves a duty so onerous, and a duty, too,

which entailed so many privations upon our
own people? We believe not. The feeling is
universal throughout the country that the
poverty of Ireland must be provided for out of
its property. We will afford every reasonable
assistance, we will lend our credit—whenever it is
distinctly shown that our aid will be really beneficial,
and that it will lead to a permanent amelioration
in the condition of the country; but we cannot, and
we will not, undertake the hopeless task of con-
tinually supplying an interminable void—of applying
our means for the mere temporary support of a people
who will do nothing for themselves. We will assist
in reclaiming waste lands, in extending fisheries, in
developing the industrial resources of the
country, but, in every instance, the first ad-
vances or loans, whether made from or guaranteed
by the British nation, must be repaid to the uttermost
farthing, as well principal as interest, by the parties
for whose benefit they have been applied, or the pro-
perties on which they have been expended must be
brought to the hammer, and the proceeds of the sale
made available for the liquidation of the debt due to
the National Exchequer.

Mr. Itiony WASON (whose admirable letter will
be found in another part of our impression) sug-
gests a plan by which the object of those demanding
the change may be effected with equal certainty,
and against which none of the objections can be
alleged that forbid the adoption of the other proposi-
tion. He recommends " that the valuation of land
should be fixed at its present value, and that the rate
should fluctuate on that fixed value according to the
wants of the poor."

This would at once afford the strongest induce-
ments to proprietors to improve their lands to the
very uttermost. The poor should still be provided
for out of the property of the country ; but the well-
cultivated lands would contribute but a small
portion of the charge in proportion to their
real value. Every act of negligence would
entail its own penalty, while industry and activity
would meet with the fitting reward. It certainly
appears to us that Mr. WASON has afforded to the
difficult problem the best solution yet offered. We
trust that it may in part, at least, be adopted by the
Legislature, and thankfully accepted by the country.
It, however, appears to us that it would be sufficient
if the valuations were made at certain intervals, and
that any person about to undertake improvements on
his property might be entitled to demand a valuation
thereof at his own expense, which should remain in
force for at least twenty-one years, or for such fur-
ther term as may be fixed on by the Legislature as
sufficient to enable him to reap the full value of the
improvements he may effect.

THE FRENCH REPUBLIC.

We have received the Paris papers of yesterday.
In the sitting of the National Assembly of the pre-
vious day, after M. DE LAWARTINE had spoken (as
we stated in The Sun of yesterday) in defence of the
foreign policy of.the Provisional Government—
M. Ledru Rollin ascended the tributie. He also de-
clared that peace had been the great thought of the
Provisional Government. The case so often alluded to
of Risquons-Tout was nothing bat a fabrication. The
present Cabinet appeared to follow a monarchical ten-
dency, as would be proved by an examination of the
manner in which it acted in every country of Europe.
The Hon. Gentleman then referred to the situation of
the aßoman States. The Pope had fled, and placed
himself under the protection of the King of Naples.
The Austrian troops were now marching on the Le-
gations.—(Movement.) He had heard that, just at
the end of the last year, a Cabinet Council was
held, at which it was resolved to allow that
course to be pursued ; that Austria should bring back
by tierce the Pope to his capital.—(M. Pussy here
made a mark of denial.) At the reception of the Pre-
sident, at the beginning of the year, that high func-
ptioonpae,rsyNaudnderioe,ssaendd, ienn trhe es
emd oas t
hopemarked t
hism a
sn no evre,r e
itghne
would be quickly replaced at Rome.—(oh, oh.) That
address was most significant. What protest did the
French Government make against the reactionary move-
ment which was thus manifested?—(Great agitation.)
None whatever. It allowed Austria to interfere, Russia
to threaten—and did nothing! It had been said that
the conduct of the Provisional Government was respon-
sible for the movement at Rome, and that it had been
the cause of the state in which the Pope was now—a
wanderer from his States. If that were meant in an
evil sense, he denied it. The Revolution of February
was a revolution which was to lead to peace, and who-
ever said the contrary were retrograde and aristocratic.
—(Movement.) If the Pope had quitted his States,
it was because he had been prompted to do so by evil
counsels. There was no necessity for such act,
as the movement at Rome was not against his
spiritual authority, but his temporal power. The
honourable gentleman then adverted to the order which
existed in Rome, as a proof that anarchy had not been
one of the means employed or reckoned on to bring
about the late changes in that city. Yet, %%hen the
people there wished to base its conduct on the course
pursued in France, France held back, and gave no aid
or encouragement. In place of acting, France, the Go-
vernment stated, was negotiating. Was this a time to
negotiate ? The state of events in every country proveJ
the contrary. Again, look at the Conference that was
to be held at Brussels. Had not Austria protested that
she would not consent to such a mediation ? Of what
use, then, was it to proceed with the threatened confe-
rence ? Was not Russia ready to act ? Were not
80,000 men of Prussia ready to march, if required ;
and at a late banquet at Berlin, had not a toast been
given to the high military officers present, "To our
next meeting on the banks of the Rhine ?" England,
too, had lately sent one of her ablest diplomatic agents
to Brussels, and he, finding that his presence was use-
less there, had at once gone on to Paris. He main-
tained that to speak of negotiations in such circumstances
was worse than idle ; it was to betray the interests of
the country.—(Applause on the Left.)
The Minister of Foreign Affairs expressed his opinion
that the negotiations would arrive at a favourable ter-
mination by patience and energy.—(lnterruption), Ho
could not enter into explanations.
M. de Larochejaquelin declared that he conceived that
explanatiens ought to be given by the Cabinet on the
statements made by M. Ledru Rollin. Those statements
were important, and ought to be replied to.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs declared that the
statements made were inexact. No such Cabinet Council
was held as he had stated. The troops of Prussia, in
place of having been increased, in order to go to the
Rhine, had been diminished, No arrangement had been
made between France, Austria, and Naples, to restore
the Pope. As to the 80,000 men of Prussia or Russia, the
best answer was the state of the army of France, con-
sisting of 500,000 men.—(Hear, hear.)
M. Ledru Rollin repeated bia former assertions, and
in the course of his remarks declared that M. Laroche-
jaquelin had, after the revolution of February, demanded
to be sent as Ambassador to Constantinople. (This
declaration produced a tremendous effect.)
M. de Larochejaquelin explained at some length, and
declared that he had been offered the place by M. de
Lamartine, and that he had refused. He would appeal
to that gentleman to say if that were not the case.
M. de Lamartine would refuse to lower the debate by
personal matter. All he would say was, that M. de
Larochejacquelin always carried in his high character his
best defence.

After some further explanations from the Minister of
Foreign Affairs, the Assembly passed to the order of the
day.

The interpellations on the snbject of the foreign
policy of the Government being ended,
The President said—The tribune is to M. J. Fevre
for other interpellations.—(Marks of surprise, mingled
with disapprobation.)
M. Jules Favre—The question I am about to address
is in no way hostile to the Ministry, but the facts on
which it is founded having appeared to me to seriously
engage the responsibility of the Government, and the
Government having for the last thirty-six hours been
silent on the subject, I consider it my duty to ask for
explanations. It relates to the publicity given in seve-
ral journals to a letter addressed by the President of the
Republic to a Minister.—(lnterruption.)
Several Voices—The order of the day.
M. Jules Favre—l consider that the publication in
question tends to bring one of the great powers of the
State into disrepute; I think that it is attended with
great danger, and that such publications would render all
government impossible. Ido not besides believe that a
letter could be published without the authorisation of the
writer. lin no way incriminate the Hon. M. de Malle-
ville, but I have heard that that letter was communi-
cated to some of our colleagues; I am ignorant by whom
that was done, for I repeat I in no way incriminate M.
de Malleville, who came to this tribune to make an
honourable statement relative to the secrecy to be
preserved concerning administrative documents.—
(Laughter.) I demand how it has happexed that the
letter has been published in a journal whose political
tendencies are well known (Legitimist), and in a depart-
ment where its publication might have a disastrous
effect. It is only, therefore, by a guilty breach of con-
fidence that the letter in question has been published; and
I ask whether the Government has ordered any inquiry
into the affair?—(Renewed cries of " Order of tne day.")
M. Odilon Barrot replied that he did not think it
necessary to give a cl;rect answer to this question. He
declared the publication of the letter to be a disgraceful
act, but he at the same time complained of the abuse
which had arisen from the practice, so often indulged
in by the members of the Assembly, of putting frivolous
or inopportune questions, of raising daily scenes, and of
provoking irritating and personal debates, for no other
apparent purpose but that of injuring the Government,

The debate on the Labour in Prisons Bill was
then resumed, and after two short speeches was again
adjourned.

The following communicated article, which may
be regarded as official, appears in the Patrie :
" The Reforme announced some time ago that in a
council of Ministers held at the Palace of the Elysite
National on the 22(1 ult., a holy alliance between Austria,