sworn to the same constitution, and Bad as Louis Napoleon and his dissolved by military force. How sorry Prætorian Guards are, they are inwe ought to be that we failed to appre- comparably better than Louis Blanc ciate the modern doctrines of liberty, and his Red Republicans. The former and forbore to rival our neighbours in are subject at least to military disthe facile art of reorganising society! "We are afraid at the present moment cipline, the latter to no authority fraternity fares little better in Paris than whatever. liberty. The arms of the soldier are turned remorselessly on the citizen, and one of the twin children of universal suffrage evinces a truly Romulean propensity to strangle the other. Of course the people are still sovereigns; but their right of sovereignty in re-electing the PRESIDENT is to be exercised at a week's notice, with out the enlightenment of the public press, and under the immediate terror of military coercion. Alas for universal suffrage, vote by ballot, quadrennial Parliaments, and an elected President, when all they can do is to give the people the opportunity of choosing a master without alternative! It is a melancholy fact for the admirers of modern constitutions that the voice poten tial in this matter is with the army, and that the people are only called on to confirm what they are powerless to reject. The Prætorian bands dispose of the empire, and the trembling electors must confirm their choice. What makes the thing more agreeable is, that these very troops have been pointedly reminded that they have the discomfitures of two modern revolutions to avenge, an exhortation designed, we presume, to fan their zeal for liberty with a gentle stimulant of fraternity. As for 'EQUALITY,' we need not say much. The citizen is sunk below the soldier; and the civil magistrate, in order to enslave his constituents, has condescended to become the creature and dependent of his guards. He does not rule by, but under, the sword. Under such circumstances a good deal of equality' may naturally be expected, for nothing is so fatal to equality as freedom, and nothing so favourable to it as despotism."-Times, Dec. 6, 1851. We make no apology for the length of these quotations; for, independent of their ability in graphic power, they are nothing more than a historical statement ex post facto of what we have constantly predicted would be the inevitable result of successful revolution among our Continental neighbours. Terrible as this military execution has been, it has obviously carried with it the concurrence of the great majority of the French; and the reason is obvious. The case is the same everywhere else as in France. Austria, Prussia, Italy, are all alike prostrated under the yoke of mililitary power. Compared with their present state, the condition of these countries, under the rule of Hardenberg and Metternich, was absolute felicity. With the usual unhappy tendency of civil conflicts, the reaction has been as violent as the action; and Austria, in particular, appears to be now suffering under a rigorous military government, which, however unavoidable in a country torn by the passions and lacerated by the wounds which Austria has received since the commencement of her convulsions, must ever be deeply deplored by every friend of real freedom. A country which has been so torn in pieces by internal convulsions as to be compelled to call in a foreign enemy to appease them, and sacrifice its independence to prolong its existence, may find some apology for subsequent measures of severity. Let those answer for them who rendered them unavoidable-who desolated a noble people with the passions, not only of civilisation, but of race—who, while they proclaimed national suffrage at Vienna, instigated national separation at Buda, and let loose at tomed to freedom, both the strongest once upon a people wholly unaccuspassions which can agitate the human heart, and either of which, in all past time, has been found sufficient to let slip the dogs of war upon mankind. The following extracts from two journals, who will not be suspected of favouring the last revolution in France-the Daily News and the Times-prove that this usurpation of Louis Napoleon, violent and bloody as it has been, has, from the horror at a Republic, and Universal Suffrage, carried with it the assent of the most influential and respectable classes in France: "I am told to-day on all hands, by persons conversant with the tone of opinion, that Louis Napoleon's triumph at the poll, fixed for the 20th, is considered as certain. Physical resistance, or materials for it, there may be said to exist none in Paris at the present moment. The blow is struck, and it has perfectly succeeded. The great proprietors, the merchants, and the moneyed interests on all hands, adhere to the new power. They regard the revolution of February as completely slain; they look forward to the rising of rents, to the revival of commerce, to the reanimation of industry. The persons and classes who, since February 1848, have been sunk in dejection and choked with fear, begin to breathe with ease, and to appear radiant with hope. I describe what I see among the opulent orders and the tradespeople, who have no political creed whatever, but only look to a strong central power to put down with the strong hand all attempts at disturbance, and stop all sources of agitation. You will find it of great importance to bear this in mind, that the government of Louis Napoleon is accepted already by all such. The new dictator meets resistance only in the political orders, which are at this moment in a terrible minority. So true is this, that M. Thiers has been set at liberty, together with the greater part of the representatives who remained still in confinement. It is the opinion of those with whom I have conversed-men quite disinterested in their views, who stand aloof from politics-that the achievement of Louis Napoleon has taken, that he will obtain a large majority of suffrages, and that no serious resistance will be offered to him in the departments. We may gather, from various signs, that gradually all traces of the revolution of February will disappear, whether in the shape of external symbols or political institutions."Daily News, Dec. 7, 1851. "The letters from the Parisian capitalists and speculators continue for the most part to express unbounded satisfaction at the prospect of military rule being thoroughly established. No desire seems to be entertained, either now or for the future, of any intermediate state between that and anarchy. An uncompromising system of repression is described as the only true reliance; and the conviction that it will now be carried out without compunction to the utmost extremity imparts a degree of confidence to the frequenters of the Exchange which overrides all other considerations. Under being an advance of more than 2 per cent. Many persons still assert that the movement is owing to Government operations; and probably the dealers, being aware of these operations, act to some extent simply upon the strength of them. The improvement, however, has been too well maintained to leave a doubt that it is also supported by purchasers among the public. The conclusion, therefore, strange as it may appear to the people of Holland and England, must be that, on the whole, the moneyed classes of Paris have arrived at the conviction that the army will henceforth permanently identify themselves with the cause of economy and commerce, and insure the state of external and internal repose that is essential to restore the balance of income and expenditure.”—Times, Dec. 15, 1851. Count Montalembert's letter of Dec. 12 is equally convulsive. "I begin by declaring that the act of the 2d December has put to flight the whole of the revolutionists, the whole of the Socialists, and the whole of the bandits of France and Europe; and that alone is, in my opinion, a more than sufficient reason for all honest men to rejoice, and for those who have been most mortified to console themselves. I do not enter into the question as to whether the coup d'état (which has been foreseen by every one) could be executed at another moment, and in another manner; to do so I should have to go back to the causes which produced it, and to give my opinion on persons who cannot now reply to me. I do not pretend to guarantee the future any more than to judge of the past; I only look at the present-that is to say, the vote to be delivered on Sunday week. "There are three courses open-the negative vote, neutrality, and the affirmative vote. "To vote against Louis Napoleon would be to justify the Socialist revolution, which, for the present at least, is the only one that can take the place of the actual government. It would be to invite the dictatorship of the Reds in place of the dictatorship of a prince who has rendered for three years imcomparable services to the cause of order and Catholicism.”—Times, Dec. 16, 1851. It is impossible to predict as yet, with any degree of certainty, what may be the issue of the present struggle in France; or, rather, which section of the army will prove victorious. per these circumstances, the funds continue to rise rapidly; and according to a telegraphic report received at a late hour at the Stock Exchange, the Five Cents this morning were at 99f. 50c., We say advisedly of "the army," because it is evident that neither the people nor the National Guard are of any weight in the conflict. If the army is unanimous, and remains faithful to its chief, the contest will speedily be terminated; and before these sheets issue from the press, Louis Napoleon will be the real Emperor of France. But that is a contest of persons only; it is whether Napoleon or Changarnier is to be the dictator. The contest in which mankind are really interested-the contest of things and principles, of property with Red Republicanism-is already over. The strife between monarchy and democracy is at an end. The republic of 1848 is numbered amongst the things that have been. It is dead and buried; it only remains for history to pronounce its funeral oration; and if it be founded on truth, that oration will be anything rather than an eloge. The only question that remains is, who is to be the military despot? and before that question is finally settled, it is not improbable that many days of mourning are in store for France. Possibly we may see, as in the days of the Roman Empire, the legions arrayed under opposite banners; and a second battle of Lyons, between 150,000 men on each side, determine who is to be the master of the Gallic world. But, in any event, the great civil question is fixed. Democracy has found its natural and inevitable master in a military chief. And the year 1851 has added another "to the many lessons which history," in Hume's words, "has taught, that civil dissensions, from whatever cause beginning, end only in the empire of the sword."* The democratic orators at Manchester, conscious of the commentary which the passing events on the Continent was reading on their projects of Reform and Universal Suffrage, are the first to discuss the subject. They say that as 400,000 bayonets and sabres in France have extinguished the Republic and Universal Suffrage, the conclusion to be drawn is not that we should abolish the Republic, but the bayonets; and that the catastrophe at Paris affords an additional argument in favour of their favourite project of selling the ships of the line and disbanding the soldiers, and trusting ourselves to the tender mercies of English Chartists, Russian bayonets, or French cuirassiers. It is amusing to see menwhose theories when reduced to prac tice have armed every nation against the other, and converted Europe into one vast camp- still continuing, amidst the universal desolation these theories have occasioned, an unshaken adherence to their ruinous dogmas, and gravely proposing the disarming of one nation, amidst the arming of all the adjoining states. We should like to see what these gentlemen would do when real danger approaches: we have not forgot what they did in the bull-ring at Birmingham in 1842, or during the pillage of Glasgow in 1848. We should like to see how earnestly they would invoke the protection of the red-coats, if their beloved allies, the Chartists, were to begin to reduce their principles to practice; or some of the myriads of armed men whom they have "called into existence" on the Continent of Europe were to approach the British shores. When will mankind learn that soldiers are a necessity, not a luxury, and that nothing calls that necessity so speedily into action as the letting loose the passions of men by the triumph of democracy? When France was governed by its lawful monarch in the days of Charles X., its military establishment was not quite 109,000 men; when a throne surrounded with republican institutions was established, it was at once raised to 320,000; but with the establishment of a Republic and Universa Suffrage, it was increased to 480,000. Charles X. was overturned because he had only 11,000 troops in Paris when the revolution broke out, of whom only one-half would fight; Louis Philippe, because neither he nor his sons had the courage to put themselves at the head of their soldiers; but Louis Napoleon has succeeded because he brought up 150,000 men, all of whom were faithful. If the dreams of the Manchester reformers were realised, Great Britain would speedily fin its military establishment increased to 300,000 *HUME's England, c. 60, ad finem. men, and its direct taxes of every description doubled; and Lord Palmerston would have no grounds for exultation at the influence of the constable's staff amongst us. The Reform with which we are threatened in the next session of Parliament is, in many respects, the most remarkable recorded in history. The most ardent reformers have never ventured to assert that either any real grievances existed which required redress, or any public demonstration whatever had been made of a general desire for further popular concessions. In fact, the public apathy on the subject was the theme of constant lament and no small surprise among the democratic party, and was the subject of loud complaint in their journals. Without doubt, when the Manchester leaders saw the Government voluntarily coming forward to offer them a large measure of reform, they were not such fools as to decline the proposal. But till the intentions of Government were declared, there was nothing heard of reform, or any necessity or desire for it. Not even a solitary petition was presented on the subject. In other eases, and in former times, Government made popular concessions from their declared inability to resist them, and from the weight of the pressure from without, which could no longer be withstood. But on this occasion, the case was just the reverse: the pressure from without, if it shall ever be felt, will have arisen entirely from the measures of Government. the nation a vast increase of popular power, when it is notorious that nobody was asking it, and it is alleged that everybody is entirely satisfied with the measures which the Reformed Parliament have adopted? It cannot be disputed that this step is attended with hazard. Every popular concession, especially in excited times, is so, in greater or less degree. Lord John Russell has told us that we cannot afford to have a revolution every year. Where, then, is the necessity-in the absence certainly of any demand for it in the country, and the alleged non-existence of any distress which can justify it-for a new and uncalled-for concession of power to the democratic part of the constitution? Where is the wisdom of volunteering to give it, at the very moment when every state on the Continent, without one single exception, affords proof of the inevitable tendency of any approach towards universal suffrage to lead the nation, by a rapid and certain process, to the destruction of industry, the ruin of freedom, and the triumph of military despotism? The thing will admit only of one solution. Government are prepared to hazard the freedom, the constitution, it may be, in the end, the crown of England, solely because they are afraid of being thrown into a minority at the next election. Amidst their ceaseless boasts of the universal satisfaction which the policy of the Reformed Parliament has given, their acts evince a secret sense of their unWhat, then, is it which has induced popularity. They do not venture to the Government to adventure upon appeal to the constituency which they the measure, at all times perilous, themselves have created, on the vital and more especially in the present question of Free Trade. They feel it excited state of Europe, of a large to be indispensable to drown the cries concession of power to the popular of suffering in the shouts of passion; portion of the constitution? We are to convulse the nation with demotold the people are perfectly satisfied cratic ambition, in the hopes of stifling with Reform, and the Free-Trade the prayers for employment, or the policy which it has engendered; that demand for a readjustment of direct wellbeing is universal, provisions taxation; to run any hazard to their cheap, and our labouring classes con- sovereign, their country and themtented; that our exports and imports selves, rather than let their own meawere never so large, nor public pro- sures be canvassed on the hustings sperity established on so wide and before their own constituencies. They secure a basis. Be it so. Where, are acting as they did in Ireland then, is the necessity for a new reform three years ago, where, amidst ceasebill? What can excuse the unpre- less protestations of the admirable cedented step of voluntarily offering working of free trade in provisions in the Emerald Isle, they were quietly taking measures to fill up the hideous gaps in the rural constituency which their own measures had made, and actually brought in a bill the object of which was to lower the franchise of tenants to a £5 interest, which was only raised to £8 by the Conservatives in the House of Lords. They had destroyed their own voters so completely that, according to their own statement, they were reduced from 250,000 to 72,000. In like manner, at present, while they are constantly boasting of the immense blessings which their measures have conferred upon the country, and the unbounded popularity which they have acquired, particularly in the urban constituencies, for whom they were all intended, they are quietly taking measures to swamp those very constituencies, and drown the cry for an alteration of policy in that for organic change, and an extension of the electoral suffrage. Other nations have been revolutionised by general suffering, experienced evils, or the undue retention of old institutions; but England is the first country recorded in history in which great and serious organic changes are threatened from no experienced evils, from no popular outery, from no antiquated privileges, but simply and solely from the anxiety of a party to retain power, and their dread of meeting their own constituencies on their own measures. It is no wonder that, amidst their boasting and high-sounding professions, the acts of government should betray a secret distrust of their own measures, and an agony of terror at the open discussion of them; for never did the policy of a party, within so short a time, inflict such general and wide-spread ruin on a country. This is proved, in the most decisive way, by public documents, published under parliamentary authority, about which there can be no dispute, and by the admission of the ablest and best informed of their advocates themselves. We desire no other testimony; we know the value of an adverse and unwilling witness; we shall rest the case against them on these two grounds, and on them alone. And first, as to emigration, the best and surest test of the wellbeing or suffering of the working classesfor no one need be told that men will never leave their country, their homes, the land of their fathers, the cradle of their childhood, unless driven to it by stern necessity. Now it appears, from the Parliamentary Reports, that the total and average of emigration from Great Britain and Ireland for twentyone years, from 1825 to 1845, inclusive, was For five years, from 1846 to 1850, inclusive, was Thus it appears that the average emigration has been nearly QUADRU PLED since Free Trade was introduced, and that in the short space of five years. What was formerly merely a trifling rill, draining off in a healthful and beneficial stream the surplus numbers of our people, has all at once swollen into a huge torrent, which Before Free Trade. carries everything before it, and threatens to drain away at once the strength, the resources, and the future population of the empire. The details of the last thirteen years, year by year, are perhaps still more instructive. They have been often given, but can never be sufficiently studied. After Free Trade. |