Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

'But who,' he adds, will dare say-" These events are finished." Every one is apt to deceive himself here. He that is fatigued with his journey, is glad to think he is near its end. Add to this, that there is in our mind a repugnance to the idea of incompleteness: men are unwilling to leave the solution of the problem to their heirs; they wish to be the surviving witnesses of expiring revolutions. Hence proceeds that puerile hastiness which leads them to mistake every interval of tranquillity for a permanent cure. Multiplied instances of this have occurred in France; at one time only this opinion became for a moment specious; but from the first, the eye of an observer might have detected evidences, that this hour of real repose was not yet come.'

M. de F. devotes his first chapter, to a comparison of the state of England at the restoration of Charles the Second, and also of France at the accession of Henry the Fourth, with that of France at the restoration of Louis the Eighteenth. Between the former of the supposed parallels and the return of Louis, he shews there is no other than the most superficial resemblance When Charles the Second ascended the throne of England, only eleven years had elapsed since his father's

death.

'Not only were the same generation living, but they had not passed through that grande mortalis avi spatium which transforms men by conducting infancy to maturity, and maturity to old age. Whoever had not been the enemy of Charles the First, still remained as the friend of Charles the Second. Nor had any change taken place in the bases (bases) of the state, in its constitution, or in its administration. The empire of religion had been strengthened rather than diminished. A gloomy and terrible fanaticism had distorted it to the extent of rendering it the moving principle of the revolution. This basis of all government remained then but too solid; it was necessary only to retrench and polish it

The magistracy, the civil laws, the rights and the duties of citizens, remained unshaken.

In short, the minds of men had not been agitated by any great change but that of the reigning monarch. They had not incurred, first the necessity, and then the habit, of bending to a new yoke; still less had they from long habit become reconciled to it. In the Constitution the same charter still existed, and the work of JohnSans-Terre, had undergone no greater alteration under Cromwell than under Henry the Eighth: violated, indeed, in practice, modified in some of its parts, its principles were still respected; and if they slumbered for a time, it was only to awaken at a future day, to triumph over oppression. We behold the same House of Peers, the same House of Commons, the same executive power, in fact, though in violent and illegitimate hands; and notwithstanding this, the independence of Parliament, which even in those times of captivity amounted to opposition, silent as it has since been under kings from whom it had nothing to fear, displayed itself with vigour under a usurper, from whom it had every thing to apprehend.

In the administration, this same usurper had, by a firm and pacific government, consolidated all the bases which formed the pillars of the monarchy: he had extinguished or repressed civil contentions, had re-united England in one body, under one law; had curbed that very fanaticism which had served him for a ladder, created the naval power of his country, augmented its riches, established its tranquillity, and raised its ascendency. Elizabeth had not achieved more. This man wanted nothing but a less degree of crime, and a greater degree of right. In short, he seemed to have laboured for the sole purpose of restoring to Charles the Second, a deposite improved by his cares.'

It is unnecessary to pursue the parallel, or rather the contrast. In every particular, the situation of France at the return of Louis the Eighteenth, the circumstances of his recall, and the character of the people over whom he returned to exercise the office of king, are so utterly different from the position of affairs at the restoration of Charles the Second, as to receive from this negative description their most forceful illustration.

The Author proceeds, however, in the second chapter, to consider the actual situation of France at the era of the Restoration in 1814. He inquires, What fundamental principles. or elements of the State remained in France?-distinguishing what he denominates bases de l'état, from its varying constitutions, which, he observes, only serve as a code to the bodies which compose the state. "Perfect as these may be,' he adds, they have never lasted, and none can ever last, so long as they rest only upon themselves, or rather so long as politicians persist in mistaking the rules of the State for its basis, and its form for the foundation.'

[ocr errors]

There remained in France no property, no body corporate, no institution, no ancient opinion, nothing that had root; consequently no fundamental principle.-But no one remained, and that, alas! was of the basest description. It was found in a necessity of dependence on the part of the people, the natural result of a tiresome abuse of liberty, succeeded by long habitude to slavery;-a negative element which sustained the usurper only as the absence of resistance, but which failed the legitimate sovereign, as positive weakness.

We understand by the fundamental principles of the State, the bodies or orders of which it is composed, invested with property, rights, and influence, sustained by their ancient guardian principles, all guarantees, and interested guarantees, of the stability of the State, of its religion, and of public virtue.

We understand by the constitution, the contract which binds these orders together in mutual union, and connects them with the sovereign and with the people.'

The eight sections of this chapter comprise a separate examination of the state of France, in reference to the great bodies of the State, and the Constitution; Religion and the Clergy; pub

lic morals and the national character; the administration; the magistracy; finances; the army; and, lastly, the individual who singly supplied the place of all the materials of the State, and filled up the void with himself-Buonaparte. Under each of these heads we meet with many general observations which discover a deeply reflective mind, and a considerable knowledge of human character. The whole chapter consists of a train of reflections, rather than a chain of reasoning, and its assertions must be viewed principally as an appeal to notorious facts. The picture which he draws of the internal state of France, is sufficiently gloomy, but we have not detected any misrepresentations that betray the partisan, nor any of those exaggerations of false eloquence, which bespeak the hireling. With regard to the nobility of France, he introduces a remark which, indeed, is sufficiently established to be received as an axiom with respect to a monarchical government, that 'Wheresoever there do not 'exist in the State intermediate orders, interested in maintaining their station between the king and the people, and con'sequently in preserving both in their relative situations, and 'wheresoever they do not combine with their interests the power of sustaining them, the barriers of the constitution are taken ' away.' In a note the Author observes-

'It would not perhaps be unworthy the attention of history, to examine the process by which the nobility were annihilated in France. Three distinct stages are plainly discernible. Richelieu deprived them of power, Louis the Fourteenth, of opulence, the philosophers and themselves, of influence. Power, opulence, and influence, constitute the entire existence of the nobility. They retained neither at the end of the eighteenth century. A century and a half had accomplished this vast destruction; and, which is still more strange, of these three one only had been wrested from them by force, they had lost the two others through vanity for they took as much pride in sacrificing their respectability under Louis the Fifteenth and Louis the Sixteenth, as in squandering their fortunes under Louis the Fourteenth.'

6

[ocr errors]

The remarks upon the religion of the State, are those of a politician, but they are liberal, and, to a certain extent, just. The moment,' says our Author, that irreligion became the fashion,' [the moment, he means, that the fashion of irreligion became general,] France was lost.' He uses irreligion in its most proper and definite sense, not as referring to any particular system of doctrines, for what would be styled irreligion by the dominant party in a state, might be, in fact, the reformation of religion; schisms and religious dissentions, how much soever to be deprecated in other respects, instead of destroying all religion, have a tendency to fortify and increase the cause of the advoeates of each particular mode of belief.-But the Author intends

by irreligion, the contemning of all religious doctrines. This might, he conceives, prevail among the higher classes, without any immediate danger of a subversion of social order, because the barriers of honour, of decorum, of education, the propriety of example, and all the human virtues of Cato and Epictetus, might still operate, for a time at least, as sufficient restraints. The danger would be considerably increased, however, when the infection had extended to the middle classes. But on its reaching the people at large, it would become immediate, and would be infinitely aggravated by their number. The actions of the mob would partake of the freedom of their opinions, and as soon as they began to act and reason together, the reign of general licentiousness would begin.

Such is actually the state of France at the present moment. Not only is the edifice of religion, according to our Author, to be rebuilt, but the very soil for its foundation, is to be created; nor are there any materials remaining for the erection. We shall transcribe the remainder of the section, as suggesting a variety of important considerations relative to the religious state of France. Our readers will bear in mind, that by the terms religion, and the ministers of religion, as here used, something very different from the instructions and institutions of the Protestant religion, is to be understood. The Author, we presume, is a Roman Catholic; but, whatever be his own particular sentiments, the only religious establishment which is likely to be invested with dignity and power and influence in France, is that of the Popish hierarchy.

Religion cannot be taught or inculcated without ministers. Where are those ministers? A few have survived, laden with and with misfortunes; each the heir of several flocks, threatened with years a speedy abandonment. Zeal has perished; talent is no more to be found; for every man of intellect exercises all his ingenuity in scepticism. The schools of religion are in ruins, and nothing but the fear of the camp has peopled the seminaries.

"The ministers of religion exercise no influence, destitute of respectability. Where is this respectability? They receive wages from the State, and alms from their people. Where shall we find the man sufficiently a Christian now-a-days, to embrace, by choice, a profession which would render his life toilsome to himself, without its being profitable to others?

Respectability, in our days, attaches only to outward splendour, to station, to power, and to property; to every thing that fascinates the eye, or bows the mind in subjection.

The foundation of all these things is, in fact, money. It comes, therefore, to this-no religion without a priesthood, no priesthood without influence, and no influence without money.

Thus, to erect the most holy edifice, it becomes necessary to descend to the basest materials, and to bring down Divine things to the

level of humanity, we must have recourse to human methods; for we live no longer in the times in which religion, in the ardour of her youth, subdued, with a cross of wood, a nation young and ardent. All that now tends to her destruction, then constituted her prosperity. Obstacles only conduced to her purity, misfortunes to her dignity; and she was endowed by poverty and by persecution.

But a religion which has grown old with a corrupted nation, is not revived in the same way as it was at first introduced. The better sort of people return, it may be, to the faith of their forefathers; some from a sense of propriety, others by the force of reason, a few even by conviction: but with a people who listen only to persuasion, with a people whose habits are formed and abandoned with equal facility, religion, as she has been the last to depart, will be the last to

return.

'One circumstance alone might have saved religion in France,had the character of a devotee been united to that of the despot, such a man would have formed a generation of monks, instead of a generation of soldiers; and would have found treasures to endow them with but Buonaparte was only a fatalist.' pp. 16-18.

Here M. de F. leaves the subject of religion: he does not attempt to suggest any plan for its revival. He is either not aware of any other expedient than that of re-establishing the Romish clergy in rank and influence, or he is conscious that it is a subject beyond the sphere of the politician. We remark, however, with pleasure, that he makes no reference to any supposed rights on the part of that clergy to a local jurisdiction, or any inherent authority, but considers the ecclesiastical body simply as the ministers of religion, to whom rank, power, and wealth, are intrusted for a specific purpose, and as the means of a beneficial influence in respect to that religion itself.

We confess that we are unable to supply our Author's deficiency, by suggesting any political expedient for reviving religion in France. We have always been led to consider the duties of government, as being limited to the objects of government; and these objects, as relating solely to the social condition and secular interests of its subjects. Mankind have been apt to expect too much from governments; they have expected them to confer that which must spring up from the bosom of the people, and to create that which is the gift of Heaven; and they have been ready to lay the blame on the expedients employed, when the mistake has originated in the chimerical nature of the object. It is the duty of governments, some will maintain,-it is of course then the duty of Louis the Eighteenth,-to provide for the religious instruction of their people. If this be granted, as a duty binding upon political rulers, it becomes a political object, and must be sought in the adoption of political expedients. Of these, the most approved, and every way the most convenient, is the establishment of a political order, the erection of a hierarchy,

« AnteriorContinuar »