The Sun.
London, England, 1866-04-05 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF T,

TlMES.—There can be no harder exile than that
of Frenchmen who, accustomed to the civilisation,
the political and intellectual activity, and the re-
fined luxury:of their own capital, finding themselves
leading a life of enforced retirement in a foreign
land, hearing oontinually of what passes in the
country they remember so well, and dwelling with
their mind's eye on its honours and enjoyments.
Such a lot has been that of the elder members of
the House of Orleans, cut short at the outset of
their brilliant careers by a revolution which drove
them and all their family from the country in which
they filled the highest places, whose history and
politics they had earnestly studied, and to whose
service they had devoted themselves with morethan
the usual zeal of Princes. It is easy to imagine
what chagrins have been borne in secret, what dis-
appointed hopes have been covered by the veil of
dignity which they have known how to wear. But
they have had at least one consolation. Though
dethroned and banished, their family has not been
forgotten. Their father sat on the French throne
for less than 18 years; he was in the eyes of a large
portion of society little better than an usurper, and
in the eyes of another only a stop-gap until the
country should be ready once more for a Republic.
His reign was disturbed by the utmost virulence of
party spirit, and was brought to an end by an out-
burst of popular Yet his single lifetime
may be said to have founded a dynasty. The House
of Orleans divides with the Legitimate Bourbon
and the overthrown Republic the affections of those
Frenchmen who are discontented with the present
rule. One would have supposed that after the lapse
of 18 years—a period as long as the reign itself of
the late King—the friends of the House of Orleans,
having no faith like Legitimacy to keep them to their
allegiance, would have been diverted to Imperialism
or Republicanism, according to their respective
bents. But this has been only partially the case.
There exists still in France a definite political party,
a definite habit of thought, which can only be de-
scribed as Orleanist. The Orleanist is the most
able and the most impacable opponent of Imperial-
ism. He is even more opposed than the Republican
to the concentration of power in the hands of one
man, for he does not believe, as many democrats
do, in the necessity of occasional dictators and the
right of genius to seize supreme authority if it will
only use it for the benefit of mankind. The Par-
liamentary system, the object of M. de Persigny's
elaborate denunciations, is still admired and trusted
by a large body of highly gifted Frenchmen, and
all these, more or less, connect it with the family
which is now in banishment. The reason of this is
obvious. Whatever may have been the faults of
Louis Philippe's Government, however narrow may
have been the suffrage on which its representative
institutions were based, however unduly obstinate
may have been its Ministers and its Deputies, it did
honestly allow France to be ruled by Parliamentary
talent. Every man who could speak or write on
political subjects had a career before him, and whe-
ther he supported the views of the King or opposed
them, might hope to gain that admiration and fame
which belong to political leaders in a Parliamentary
country. Consequently political ability in France
is still Orleanist. Not only such veterans as Guizot
and Thiers, but also a whole race of young men
who have emerged into active life since the down-
fall of the Monarchy of July, have a sympathy with
an order of Government which developed talents
like their own. They may have no definite designs,
they may be ready to accept institutions which the
majority of Frenchmen have chosen, and which are
at least compatible with great material prosperity
and a wide influence over foreign nations ; but their
ideal of apolitical system is that which existed during
the 18 years of Louis Phillippe, and they give their
sympathy to the family which they consider to repre-
sent it. The existence of this feeling gives an interest
to the assemblage of statesmen and men of letters
which gathered round the grave of the late Queen
of the French. This lady had the highest claims
to the respect of Royal personages and the Ambas-
sadors of foreign courts. She came of the highest
lineage in Europe; her mother was an Austrian Arch-
duchess, her father was a Bourbon, she was closely
connected with the elder as well as the younger of the
two French royal families. That the Prince of Wales
or the representative of the Austrian Emperor should
be present to pay the last tribute of respect was
graceful and fitting, but there is something still
more gratifying in an attendance which bespeaks
attachment to a principle. The friends of the late
dynasty have shown themselves unaltered in their
allegiance to the political system which they admi-
nistered in years gone by. Without intending any
political demonstra.ion, and moved solely by the de-
sire to show respect for one who was the wife of their
former ruler, some of the most eminent men in France
stood by the side of the grave on Tuesday. Remark-
able beyond all were the two former rivals, M. Guizot
and M. Thiers. Their contests are still in the me-
mory of the present generation. They disputed with
an eloquence and ability seldom surpassed, and with
an earnestness that sometimes passed into acrimony,
and yet they stood together to do honour to the
dead. With them were others who gained distinction
in the late reign, and were desirous to show they had
not forgotten the principles of their earlier age. It is
no little honour for a family that it should be asso-
ciated in the minds of a class of gifted men with the
memory of constitutional freedom. That this should
be the case is a sufficient reply to those who would
unduly censure the late King of the French. What-
ever may have been the errors of his reign, it is evi-
dent that those who knew him best, and were most
concerned with political affairs while he was on the
throne, retain a sincere respect for the July mo-
narchy, a sympathy for the house of Orleans in its
fallen fortunes, and a hope that :France may, under
one ruler or another, regain such a polity as was
overthrown in 1848. It must be a con-
solation to the family of the late Queen
to find that the throne which she shared is still thus
remembered in France. For our own countrymen
we may say that both in her Royal and her private
capacity the late Queen gained their unfeigned
respect and goodwill. While her husband reigned
her influence was constantly exerted in the cause of
peace, and during many years of exile she has lived
a patient and blameless life among us, doing good
largely, but quietly. With the death of the Queen
the monarchy of July appears to recede still further
into the past. So many of those whom we associate
with it have passed away that it seems now to belong
almost wholly to history. Queen Marie Amelie,
who represented in character and sentiments the
pre-revolutionary period of France, and whose
career seems to bridge over the most momentous
age in modern annals, has been spared until a great
part of her younger contemporaries have been taken
away. Her son-in-law, the late King Leopold, was
the last to fall. Of those who called Louis Philippe
to the throne and upheld him in the early days of
his reign the most eminent stood by her grave at
Weybridge. In a few years they too must be with-
drawn from the scene. The time has now arrived
when we can consider the reign of Louis Philippe
without prejudice or partiality, and do justice to an
illustrious couple, remarkable alike for their high
destinies and for the misfortunes that beset both the
opening and the close of their lives.
PosT.—The question of the redistribution of seats
among the electors of the country, which is even of
greater importance than the question of the extension
of the franchise, is naturally attracting much atten-
tion among politicians. As every argument for the
extension of the franchise is based upon the as-
sumption that the Parliament of England ought to
represent the people of England, it is felt than an
equitable distribution of members among the elec-
tors is, so far as an exact representation is concerned,
of even more importance than any increase in the
absolute number of electors that can be proposed.
And it is equally felt that the prospects of the
Government will not be in the least improved even
if their present Reform Bill should pass the second
reading, unless the measure of redistribution which
is to be submitted to the House of Commons im-
mediately after is not palpably final and satisfac-
tory. The weak point of the Ministry is that they
huve taken in hand half a measure. only, and that
half the least important in the eyes of most people.
It is probable that in the shape in which it is pre-
sented it will never pass into law ; for, although it
may by the influence that a Government in office
can always bring to bear be passed through a second
reading, it is probable that it will be so altered in
committee and in the Lords as to bear little re-
semblance to the original measure ; and not only
the extent of these alterations, but the existence of
the Government itself, will be bound up in no small
degree with the merits of the scheme of redistribu-
tion which will be proposed if the debate, which is
to commence on the 12th, should issue favourably
for the Ministry. It is admitted by the Govern-
ment that their bill at present is incomplete, and
therefore unvatisfactory, and if the House of Com-
mons can be induced to allow it to proceed on suf-
ferance, it can only be on the condition that the
further measure for its completion should prove to
be well considered and unobjectionable. It is to be
remarked that the same objections do not exist
against a fresh distribution of seats as against the
extension of the franchise to new classes of voters;
and many who see very good reasons for not hand-
ing over a preponderance of power to those who
are least likely to exercise it with wisdom and dis-
cretion would not see any reason for not giving to
each constituency, however it may be composed, its
fair proportionate share of power. .Thus, redistribu-
tion, although a more important, is, as far as abstract
principle goes, a less difficult question than exten-
sion ; and, were there no other reasonsin existence,
the Ministry might have thought that they were
securing a tactical advantage by committing the
House of Commons, if possible, first to the adoption