Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

by that just conclusion were we misled, inasmuch as a French theorist is altogether different from an English theorist. We Britons are accustomed to call him a theorist who logically carries out his principles or opinions, unalloyed, to their impracticable extremes. Now, in France, such extremes are held to be what is most natural and simple; hence, in politics, despotism and republicanism are thought plain, natural opinions, whilst the theorist, the doctrinaire, is the philosophical politician, who endeavours to steer betwixt those extremes, taking the good, and shunning the evil of both. Should we then translate a doctrinaire a practical man?

To return to our Professor. When the letters from Paris, written at Berlin, were published, he applied himself sedulously to the composition of his second, and far more considerable historical work, the necessary preparation for which had called him to Paris. This is a History of Europe, from the end of the 15th century, of which five volumes have now appeared, reaching little beyond the middle of the 17th century, consequently about half, and that the least complicated half of the whole undertaking. Of the research and labour requisite for the composition of such a history-as Raumer writes history-not superficially, compiling from a few popular historians in the several countries, but with deep and patient investigation of all sources of information, and with as patient, almost as toilsome, and more arduous, critical comparison of the collected materials and clashing statements, it is impossible to think, without feeling profound respect for the author who devotes his time, thoughts, his very life to such a task. Of the History itself we shall not here speak further; it is yet, more than his History of the Hohenstauffens, a work far too important to be criticised incidentally, and we need not say that we have here neither space nor time to discuss its character as it ought to be discussed. Besides, as with respect to the past, the writer's political views are unchanged, this history scarcely comes within the subjects here treated; and it will be enough to say that it fully confirms our original respect for the historian of the Hohenstauffen Emperors.

Nearly two years ago, the same pursuit of historical information, that took Herr Von Raumer to Paris in 1830, brought him to London, to explore the British Museum, and the State Paper Office. He there reaped a harvest as abundant as the former, and used his London in the same extraordinary way as his Parisian harvest; to wit-he published two more volumes of appendix, as an independent book. All we shall further observe, relative to this portion of his visit, dedicated to old MSS. and their repositories, is, that Raumer's physical sensibility to heat and cold strikes us as somewhat peculiar. In the Bibliothèque du Roi, at Paris, which is never warmed save by the summer's sun, as Raumer himself complainingly states, the historian had caught a cold, so violent, that producing intestinal inflammation, it had nearly terminated his labours with his life; and in his letters from London, he speaks of similar perils, from the yet colder atmosphere of the reading-room at the British Museum, as having been avoided only by vigilant watchfulness over his sensations, and hurrying away from this scene of chilly danger when they indicated cause of apprehension. Now, as the said reading-room is heated throughout the season by a hot air apparatus, and that to a degree which we, individually, have often found inconvenient, and which induces a universal uncloaking of the readers, we know not how to explain our Professor's chilliness, unless we suppose that, having heard much, both of the superior liberality of all French public establishments, and of the alleged illiberality of the English, he took it for granted that our reading-room must be the coldest, and shivered, as some have died, under sensations originating solely in a prepossessed, prejudiced imagination.

But it is of his letters concerning living England, of the impression produced by the appearance of this country upon the loyal Conservative Prussian, so different from that which our previous knowledge of his opinions had led us to anticipate, from that which the very same appearances produced upon the Republican brother of the Englandhating Emperor Napoleon, that we are to speak, our object being to solve, if

possible, the mystery of such inconsistency. Perhaps one word may explain the difference last mentioned. The Prince of Canino resided long, observed, and thought for himself;the Berlin Professor But let us state facts rather than pronounce judgment, and the same explanation may help us to read both riddles.

Ne

We know that Herr Von Raumer came hither strongly recommended to the fair and talented translator of Prince Puckler Muskaw; that he was by her introduced to all the Whig literati, to all the Whig Mæcenases, to whom her pen and her politics had introduced herself; and, moreover, from his Paris letters, that he was of a temperament not unsusceptible of the influences, skiey and other, amongst which fate might chance to throw him. All this we knew before hand. vertheless, we felt that we were so thoroughly acquainted with the historian's political principles and sentiments, even as they appear in those very Paris letters, that we could not entertain a doubt but that our constitutional monarchy, such as it once was, must be so exactly to his taste, unless, indeed, he should think it too free, too democratic, that we opened his England im Jahre 1835, anticipating regrets of every recent change which had tended to assimilate this country to theorizing, centralizing France. What words can express our surprise, when instead, we read, as the fruits of the Professor's own enquiries and observations, a speech of my Lord John Russell's upon one political question, a speech of Mr Spring Rice's upon another, a speech of Mr Poulett Thompson upon a third, &c. &c., merely a little Germanized, and not a single word or remark that could be called original, if we except the very original idea of doing justice to Ireland, by converting every starving cottager into an independent landed proprietor; that is to say, robbing Peter not to pay, but to give alms to Paul?

Is, then, the word of the enigma simply this, that Raumer had no time to observe for himself relations and conditions that lie less upon the surface here than in France, and therefore listened instead of looking? If so, of England in 1835 not another word; for why should we trouble ourselves to take at second-hand, in German or

English, translated back from German into the original language, if not into the original words, what we can so easily get, spick and span new, from the Whig statesmen and orators, and ladies and gentlemen, from whom Professor Von Raumer received his observations, views, and opinions?

Will it be asked, why, then, have we written so much about this Prussian, we must not, will not say rat, but seduced changeling? For two or three reasons-First, we wished to explain and excuse, to those who knew nothing else of Herr Von Raumer, our regard and respect for an author who could write such silly letters; secondly, we wished to show the inconsistency of his objectionable, borrowed opinions, with those which are the offspring of his own unbiassed intellect; and lastly, and chiefly, we were moved by a patriotic desire to point out to the Conservatives of England a striking illustration of the remarks contained in the first extract we made from the Paris Letters. Alas! We doubt no Tory Lords were duly impressed with the necessity of enlisting on their side the opinions and active exertions of the able Berlin Professor. We doubt no Tory Ladies wooed him to their brilliant soirées, or, if they sent the foreigner an " At Home," troubled their heads about him, beyond the reception, smile, and welcome, when he came. And lo! the result! Professor Von Raumer, during the few hours which, for two or three months, he daily dedicated to the business of exploring, understanding, and appreciating England and the English, could observe and think only by the organs of his Whig friends, admirers, and instructors. May Tories profit by experience, and not in future make over learned foreigners wholly to Whigs and Radicals!

Let us now turn to a more gratifying theme; the views of the able Republican who so differently appreciates this country-whose political opinions have been so materially modified by his observations of England and the English.

Having already contrasted him as a politician with Professor Von Raumer, and that under various aspects, we should now speak of the Prince of Canino as an author. But various

difficulties start up in our way. In

this capacity he was first known to us as a poet, and as such we wish not to speak of him. We are no admirers of French poetry, revolutionary or monarchical, romantic or classic. We must even confess a lurking suspicion that the French language, so superlatively colloquial, is utterly incapable of genuine poetry; for which reason we frankly challenge ourselves as unfit to sit in a poetic jury upon the Prince of Canino's Charlemagne, and, we believe, other epics.

As a prose writer we know him chiefly by the already mentioned volume of memoirs lately published, and which, we must confess, whilst affording us very considerable satisfaction, has likewise occasioned us much disappointment. We had impatiently awaited these promised memoirs, in which we had expected to find Lucien Bonaparte's version of the 18th Brumaire his views respecting his brother's conversion of the republican consulate into the empire; further, respecting this same brother's policy, domestic and foreign; and when this first volume was placed in our hands, we read on, incessantly looking for the writer's incessantly announced comparison of the 18th Brumaire and its results with the Three July Days and their results. We reached the end of this first volume, and found that all these objects of historical, political, and literary desire were to occupy the second volume. We asked for the second volume, and behold you it is to be published or not, perhaps written or not, according as the reading world shows itself deserving thereof by its reception of this first volume, which stops immediately prior to Napoleon's return from Egypt.

What is this as a contribution to the history of our times? What is it as a literary composition? A mere exposition of the subject of the great drama, scarcely entering upon le naud de l'intrigue-a fragment. How should we form a critical or historical opinion upon such a fragment? We cannot even attempt so vague a task, and shall merely select a few detached passages out of this first volume, illustrative of the Prince of Canino's political opinions, as modified by, or educed from, the evils, the vicissitudes, the catastrophes that he has witnessed

-in which he has participated. Those opinions, we would fain hope, considering the democratic character and Bonapartean blood of the writer, may not be without weight with such politicians as would scoff at Tory reasonings as the drivellings of dotage, or the empty and unmeaning words of hypocrisy or tyranny.

The first passage we select may be no unuseful lesson to well-meaning incipient demagogues touching the seductions of popularity, the unanticipated influence which the passions of their hearers may exercise over their deliberately preconceived intentions. Lucien Bonaparte relates his being sent, whilst a mere youth, on a mission to France by the Corsican republicans, when the long revered Paoli preferred English to French liberty; and his introduction as a Corsican republican to the Jacobin Club, upon his landing at Marseille. We should say, that not having met with or heard a good character of the English translation of these memoirs, we translate for ourselves.

"I was called to the tribune before I had considered what I should say. I exclaimed that the nation was betrayed in Corsica, and that we came to invoke our brethren's aid. I had meant, I wished to spare Paoli; but the acclamations of the galleries increased in proportion to the violence of my language, and for the first time I experienced the power of the hearers' passions over a public speaker. Hurried away by the shouts, the agitation of the galleries, I presently said every thing that could further inflame their passions. I no longer confined myself to soliciting prompt succours against the common enemy- -I painted Paoli as having betrayed the national confidence, and returned to his native island only to surrender it to the English, whom I did not spare. midnight the sitting broke

up.

At

I re

"Solitude and sleep calmed my spirits. The image of that Paoli, so long the object of my veneration, arose, disturbing my soul with emotions that resembled remorse. collected my conversations with him at Rostino. I had just poured forth, unpremeditatedly, the very reverse of what I had for months heard from his revered lips; and ferocious execrations of Paoli had responded to my

[blocks in formation]

"Next morning these Marseillois deputies came and led me to a coffeehouse to breakfast. We passed through la Cannabriere, the principal street of Marseille. I admired its length, its superb edifices. It was thronged with men, women, and children, all elbowing their way forward; and I asked one of the friends and brothers whether it were a holiday? He answered placidly, No, it's only a score or so of aristocrats making their somerset (qui font la culbute). Dost not see them?' I looked as he pointed; I saw the guillotine, red with blood-at work. The wealthiest merchants of Marseille were there undergoing decapitation! And the crowd, so long fed by them, was parading in la Cannabriere to enjoy the spectacle! The shops were full as ever of customers the coffee-houses were open-cakes and gingerbread were in request as at a fair! This was what I saw the first time I walked in the streets of Marseille, and what I can never forget!"

This sight, following so close upon his remorse-awakening efforts of eloquence, seems to have cured Lucien Bonaparte of his puerile Jacobinism, and he gives an account of his successful exertions to rescue provincial victims during THE TERROR; as what we are used to call the times of terror is now yet more expressively termed in France, preceded by a statement, than which we do not recollect to have seen any more briefly impressive of the horrors of anarchy.

*

"Who shall dare to say what he would have done if driven to the infernal alternative of those days-kill or be killed? Young men !-read the history of ninety-three, not in the pleadings of rhetoricians falsely calling themselves historians, but in the columns of the inexorable Moniteur. Read patiently. Then will you, like your fathers, shrink in horror from the rule of the multitude. Under the despotism of one man, or of several men you risk falling a victim. Under

[ocr errors]

a democratic despotism that risk is centupled; but you incur another, beyond comparison more dreadful— That of becoming the executioner."

[ocr errors]

But our main interest in these memoirs lies, as before intimated, in the opinions of the able, statesmanlike writer respecting forms of government and constitutions, those opinions being modified by, if not wholly founded upon his own experience; and doubly valuable from the original democratic and republican tendency of Lucien's inclinations. We cannot but hope that this generally known tendency may lead to the book's being extensively read, among the reformers and revolutionists of the present day, especially those of the continent, and yet more especially of France, a country that now sets the fashion of liberty and constitutions, as it has long done of caps, coats, and cookery. Would the French Republicans listen to and profit by the words of that true and original Brutus, Bonaparte-the name adopted by Lucien when Christian names were exploded as aristocratic-who was so long held up to admiration as the very beau ideal of a Republican, we strongly opine that we should no longer hear our own British radicals sneering at what they are now pleased to designate as "the twaddle about balance of power in the constitution." It is not, indeed, in our pages that we expect those who need such lessons will study them; but we may here cheer the drooping spirits of readers, for whom the name of the Prince of Canino has no charm, by showing them the wisdom that the staunch Revolutionist has derived from experience. Of the various constitutions that succeeded each other in France, prior to the 18th of Brumaire, he thus speaks :

"The Republican Directorial Constitution offered more guarantees to public security than the monarchy of ninety-one. Let us compare the bases of those two codes. As to the code of ninety-three, which separates them, it was nothing but an absolute democracy, as such, utterly inapplicable to a great nation."

"In 91, the sovereign or legislative power was concentrated in one

Meaning, of course, M. Thiers and Co.

single body, which was to be entirely and at once changed every second year. [This view of the Legislative Body, of the National Assembly as a despotic sovereign in opposition to the debilitated and helpless Executive Power, is just, and strikes us as original.]

"In 95, the sovereign power was divided between two bodies, one-fifth of which was annually changed. Now what is the concentration of the sovereign power, whether in an individual or a body, but despotism? What is the frequent and complete change of the depositary of this sovereign power, whether an individual or a body, but anarchy ?

"The constitution of 91 was a confused medley of despotic and anarchical principles. It merely translocated the despotism or legislative unity. It changed a hereditary for a biennial master. The new master was more absolute than the old, because he had not been opposed by parliaments (French), by nobility, by clergy, or by provincial states. On the other hand, the biennial change of this absolute sovereign kept every question unsettled, at least incessantly mooted anew. We might every second year pass from a monarchy to a republic, from a republic to a monarchy. A burst of enthusiasm, a decree extorted by fear, was all-sufficient for the change."

"It

placed a baseless, unsupported throne, in opposition to an omnipotent, everchanging sovereign. It gave to the shadow of a king neither the initiative of new laws, nor the right of dissolving the legislature, whilst the suspensive veto for two years could only enable him to incur the vengeance of the absolute master."

And this constitution of 91, so clearly and argumentatively condemned by Lucien Buonaparte, is the constitution par excellence which the Spanish Extraordinary Cortes of Cadiz, after having seen its failure in France nearly copied in 1812, which Portugal and Naples imitated at se ́cond hand, and which, after a second failure, though in an inverse sense,* in all those countries, has been revived with but little modification, and

[ocr errors]

forced upon the de facto Queens (if Queens de facto they still are) of Spain and Portugal.

We thought to have here terminated our extracts; but we cannot refuse ourselves the pleasure of here inserting this enlightened foreign Republican's view of the English Constitution, to which we alluded some pages back.

"In England, I have seen how well a really constitutional monarchy suits a great nation. We here behold, if not the best, yet a good and happy Republic, not in a programme, but in practice and in morals,-the legislative power, wisely divided amongst three authorities, each of which exercises unshackled its proper prerogative, the executive power possessing full latitude for doing good, neither having nor seeking any for doing evil,—the judicial power so independent, that the obscurest person, like the greatest wealthiest lord, like the meanest or the most illustrious continental exile, feels perfectly secure under the guarantee of the jury, which no sacrilegious touch can pervert, of domiciliary inviolability, which no villany may profane. The elective branch of the legislature, chosen by eight hundred thousand electors out of a population of twentyfive millions, which, if far from universal suffrage, approaches five times nearer to it than our electoral law. Lastly, the House of Peers, accessible to every citizen, too powerful and too enlightened to yield to the allurements of the Court or the clamour of the multitude. These hereditary magistrates have for a century and a half been the defenders of the charter, the immortal work of their ancestors. Their tutelary supremacy will long remain the palladium of British liberty, provided they cease not to resist inflexibly the overflowing torrent of popular opinions, which nothing short of a social convulsion could satisfy; provided they do not forsake their own appropriate territory to defend themselves weakly upon that of their adversaries, but, influenced by state reasons, consider every new law proposed relatively rather to its probable action upon the constitution, as a whole, than to that

Its first appearance ending in anarchy, its second in the restoration of absolutism,

« AnteriorContinuar »